1998-06-223817REPS498501998-06-22Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous49854985Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On earlier occasions, on the closest date to the birthday of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma/Myanmar the honourable member for Lalor and I have moved a resolution with regard to her birthday. I think all members share our concern that the government of that country should pursue the cause towards human rights and democracy. I am sure all of us would extend to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi our best wishes for her 53rd birthday on 19 June 1998.Miscellaneous49854985Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The second issue that I want to briefly mention is that there are a number of committee reports this morning. There are also a number that have been presented to this House. I understand that there are quite a considerable number of speakers, beyond those who have been listed, who wish to speak on those subjects which have been matters of inquiry by various committees. It will be my intention to request of the Leader of the House that there will be, either in this chamber or in the Main Committee, an opportunity for those members who wish to speak to address those matters.Committees49854985498512:33:004985Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Adjusting to agricultural trade reform—Australia no longer down under , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEY—Mr Speaker, the report I table today follows an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources, Rural and Regional Affairs into agricultural trade reform. The committee has made 34 recommendations to improve Australia's position in the face of increasing world agricultural trade liberalisation.Australia cannot afford to relax in its pursuit of removing barriers to agricultural trade. There are significant opportunities for all Australians arising from trade reforms, amounting to around $1,000 extra per year for each family. Australia exports more than 70 per cent of its agricultural production and five times more primary products than it imports. Last year, Australian farm exports increased 7.4 per cent to $21 billion. But Australia still represents only one per cent of world trade in agriculture. A fair, global, rules-based trading system is vital for us as a small player in the world market. Reverting to protectionist policies of the past will not generate wealth or jobs for Australians.The committee found a disturbing lack of information and opportunities for export and has recommended that government and agricultural leaders need to improve their efforts to inform producers and the public of opportunities arising from trade reform. The committee recognises that while many opportunities exist, some producers will be adversely affected, and recommends that both industry and government, in partnership, address the concerns of those people. The committee believes that all Australians need to be better informed about the reasons for adjusting to liberalised markets. Job creation is one important reason—with the creation of 300,000 net jobs from trade expansion.The committee found a serious lack of a strong export culture among Australians, including many farmers, despite the heavy dependence on overseas markets for our agricultural products and, for our economy, on exports. Trade liberalisation is understood and supported among industry leaders but a stronger export culture needs to be developed among grassroots producers.Advances in information and transport technologies are bringing new opportunities for producers. As the title of our report suggests, Australia is no longer `down under' but is fully integrated into world markets. Australian agribusiness must embrace emerging technologies, such as electronic commerce and the Internet, which will bring significant business opportunities for producers, especially SMEs. There are some primary industries facing serious challenges to their traditional domestic markets as a result of trade reforms. The adjustments in those industries must be properly managed by the industry, in partnership with government.Progress to reduce and eliminate trade barriers in major overseas markets has been too slow for our Australian producers. Australian trade negotiators must have solid commercial skills to aggressively pursue the removal of all trade barriers to benefit Australian producers. The committee has recommended that market access specialists with commercial and industry experience be appointed with responsibilities in trade negotiations for each major Australian agricultural industry. There is little sense in opening markets for Australian products if businesses cannot compete in these markets due to high costs incurred in production. Quarantine inspection services, labour, transport and taxation costs are specific impediments targeted in the committee's report. The committee made recommendations for government and industry partnerships to reduce the impact of these impediments.It is essential that Australia can respond quickly to biodiversity issues affecting trade. The committee has recommended that a minister responsible for biosecurity be appointed. Increased exposure to the volatility of world markets has prompted many agribusinesses to review their marketing strategies. Networks are building critical mass through product aggregation. Coordinated marketing strategies from a network of exporters can reduce marketing costs. Primary producers successfully taking advantage of export opportunities are those who have sought out and developed reliable information sources. I hope that the recommendations contained in this report assist many producers to follow their lead.With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to place on record my thanks to the secretariat and all committee members. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:38:004986Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—As one of the few rural Labor members, I am pleased to hear from people all around the country regarding the benefits and concerns to Australia's primary industries of international agricultural trade reform. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs undertook this inquiry because we believed that we needed to determine why some industries were successful in expanding exports while others seemed to be either struggling to export or not responding to the apparent opportunities.As the committee proceeded with its inquiry, many issues came up that particularly impacted on the deliberations of the committee. These included quarantine on the salmon and pork industries, the sugar industry tariffs and wheat subsidies—all of which have been causing consternation and pain in rural areas. Throughout its investigations, the committee found a perception that Australia is undertaking trade liberalisation faster than other nations, thereby giving overseas nations an advantage in Australia while reciprocal advantages are not yet available to Australian exporters. The report found—and the honourable member for Calare (Mr Andren), in his dissenting report, agreed with this—that globalisation and liberalisation of trade are occurring outside our control, that we must seize the opportunities to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs and that, despite liberalisation, an overwhelming number of trade barriers continue to impede market access.The report also points out that the goal of achieving free trade is unrealistic and ignores the legitimate impediments to free trade such as the environment, national sovereignty and food security. It is true that the concept of a level playing field is unrealistic in its current presentation and ignores unique factors such as culture, politics, geography and levels of technological development.I think the point that is being made is that there is a need to assist industries going through change, particularly the smaller ones. Regions such as Tasmania have a number of small emerging exports, and they have great concerns that their produce could be traded off against the big ticket items such as red meat, wheat and wool. This report has made a number of recommendations, including the committee recognising that there are industries facing serious challenges to their traditional domestic market as a result of trade liberalisation and that structural adjustment should be properly managed. The degree of this assistance will obviously be critical. Once the government has reviewed this report, I would be seeking recognition of the particular needs of the regions being included.The report has also recognised the need to get more information out about the export markets and that government should assist and facilitate industry to be able to compete. Transport is another area that needs to be addressed. There is a lack of consolidation of fresh foods into export containers, and Australia needs to become proficient in providing a more efficient transport system for exported fresh produce.Since beginning the inquiry, there have been many developments with our near neighbours. We also have to be aware of the likelihood of key Asian markets adopting a more protectionist agricultural trade stance and we need to be able to respond quickly to minimise any adverse impacts on Australian exports.This was a very broad-ranging report and I believe that many aspects of it require greater consultation with growers if policy is to be implemented. We cannot ignore the need for primary producers to export and, to do so effectively, we must build an environment that is favourable to our markets. We do not necessarily have to lead the way, but our farmers need to be able to identify opportunities that will allow them to harvest the benefits of the trade reform process.I support the overall findings of the report and will await the government's response with interest. However, I will be seeking to ensure that the regions are properly recognised and rewarded for their efforts in keeping their industries in the vanguard of development and their ability to raise employment in those industries in any ongoing policy development.In relation to your comments before the report was tabled, Mr Speaker, it is important that people have an opportunity to speak on these reports. After having put in eight or nine months work on this inquiry and then having only five minutes to address the report does not reflect the amount of work that we all put in, especially those of us on the back bench. I am sure that many members of this committee who have put in time and effort would like to make a considered comment to the parliament. I look forward to having that opportunity in the future.HX4KATTERMr Katter—Mr Speaker, I wish to strongly dissent from the report.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Unfortunately, the honourable member will not have an opportunity to be heard because the time allocated to the report has concluded, but I draw the honourable member's attention to the intervention by the honourable member for Lyons and my own comment before I called the honourable member for McEwen that I would hope that further time can be made available when the honourable member's dissent and that of other members who may wish to comment on the subject matter can be further considered.4987Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I take this opportunity to support all of those who wish to speak on this very important report. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.4987498712:44:004987Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the committee's report entitled To have and to hold: strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—This report arises from a reference given to the committee by the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) in August 1996 to inquire into the factors contributing to marriage and relationship breakdown, and the most effective strategies to address these matters. In almost two years, the committee held public hearings in all states and territories, received 177 submissions from family service providers, held informal discussions with the Tiwi people on Bathurst Island, visited family service agencies, observed information and mediation sessions conducted by the Family Court, examined marriage education course materials and spoke to educators, and discussed the issues with leading researchers both in Australia and overseas.The focus of the report is the strengthening of marital relationships. In the report, the committee has noted a series of demographic trends, including: people marrying later and more never marrying; an increase in single-parent families, with more than 25 per cent of children today born out of wedlock; a quadrupling of the divorce rate; and a reduction in the remarriage rate. We also reviewed and spoke to a number of leading social scientists about the considerable and mounting evidence that marriage brings health benefits for both men and women and, conversely, that separation and divorce are problematic for men, women and children.This report is about preventing marital distress and the consequent breakdown of relationships. It arises from our concern for children—for their future, their happiness and their ability to form their own loving and fulfilling relationships. The central theme of the report is that the family relationships services program within the Attorney-General's Department should recognise in its objectives and funding mechanisms the programs of prevention—namely, marriage and relationship education and family skills training—as distinct from programs of therapy, counselling and mediation.The committee believes that the priority areas for marriage and relationship education relate to three life transition events: getting married; the birth of the first child; and separation, including the formation of new relationships. Amongst the 55 recommendations are the following: a national strategy to help strengthen marriage and family in Australia in light of the cost of marriage breakdown, which we estimate at between $3 billion and $6 billion a year; an increase of $1.6 million in funding to the preventive programs of marriage and relationship education; and a new, fairer and transparent funding system that will help to encourage more people to participate in these programs.The committee also recommends the following: a new council for marriage, relationships and parenting education to be established as a peak body in the field, both to represent educators involved in this work and, where appropriate, to provide advice to government; a 10 per cent increase in funding of about $1.5 million for programs of marriage counselling; and the relocation of the Australian Institute of Family Studies in the Attorney-General's Department, with a refocusing on its initial objectives to look at factors contributing to marital stability and instability in this nation.The committee also recommends the wider promotion of marriage and relationship education and a new range of financial incentives, including the provision of complimentary vouchers to be made available by family relationships agencies and marriage celebrants to encourage access by both engaged and de facto couples to marriage and relationship education programs. The committee supports the work of the family relationships agencies and believes its recommendations will assist them in their valuable community work.The committee recommends that the maximum notification period for intention to marry be extended by law to 18 months to encourage more people to seek marriage education before their wedding. The committee recommends no change to the minimum notification period of one month.I thank the members of the committee for their interest and work, especially the deputy chair, the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland). I also thank the committee secretary, Claressa Surtees, for her sterling efforts, particularly over the last three months in putting this report together, and our researcher, Mary Anne Neilsen, who capably picked up the work midway through the inquiry.For the past two decades, much attention has been given to strategies to lessen the consequences of marriage breakdown. Much time has been spent and many reports have been written on separation, divorce and family law. We believe it is timely to renew our attention on the causes of marital stability and instability, and to promote programs of preventive education. I commend the report to the House.12:49:004989McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I have pleasure in seconding the recommendation of the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews). While he cannot sing his own praises, I think other members of the committee would not be embarrassed if I indicated that he made a substantial contribution to the report of the committee entitled To have and to hold in terms of both research and drafting. The report has considerable merit. I think it deserves a lot of attention in the community, and I believe that it will obtain that.Some 43 per cent of marriages in Australia will end in divorce. As the chairman of the committee indicated, the direct financial cost of divorces is about $3 billion a year. When you factor in indirect costs, it is about $6 billion a year. Despite that, successive governments have really only touched the edges of prevention.We spend about $3.5 million on preventative marriage and education programs and about $2.5 million on parenting programs. When you add those figures together, there is about a thousand-fold difference between the cost to the community of relationship breakdowns and what we do to try to prevent that occurring. From the point of view of the social costs, 54 per cent of divorces involve children under 18 years of age.According to the Family Court, in 1996 there were about 158,000 children who were affected by divorce. That has had a significant effect on the social structure of the nation. About 80 per cent of children live with their mother. Some 14.5 per cent of families are now single parent families. Just 10 years ago, the rate was about half that. There has been, as a result, a feminisation of poverty. Because of those single parent families, the social structure is such that more women are living in poverty because of their role as single mothers.There are also significant health costs of divorce. Griffith University found that of 4,000 suicides that it researched, 70 per cent were caused by relationship breakdown. Marital breakdown, or relationship breakdown generally, has a significant effect on children. It is implicated strongly in youth depression and youth suicide. Children of separated parents are three times more likely to be suspended or expelled from school. On the whole, they have decreased prospects of university admission but increased prospects of unemployment. They have an increased incidence of asthma and they have an increased incidence of even stomach ulcers. So there is a significant effect on the innocent parties of relationship breakdowns.High conflict in a marital relationship or a de facto relationship is implicated in a significant amount of child abuse. Generally, relationship breakdown substantially reduces the parental investment in children. It is something that really has the potential for long-term intergenerational effects and it is something that warrants urgent attention.There is, however, some hope. The report indicates that, five years after the event, some 37 per cent of those who have separated regret the separation having occurred. Some 40 per cent think that things could have been done to prevent that occurring. This really is the focus of the report.There is no point being accepting, depressed or complacent about the situation. There is much that can be done. The report basically focuses on the need for prevention and education rather than trying to pull the pieces together after a relationship has broken down. As I say, the report is an excellent work. It is an excellent work by the contribution of a number of members of the committee but in particular the chairman. I am sure it is one that is going to be the subject of considerable public debate, but I think that debate is going to be constructive and this report will provide an excellent focus for that debate. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the chairman, as one who was a member of the committee, I commend the chairman, the deputy chair, members of the committee and the secretariat on what appears to me to be an excellent report on a very difficult subject.4990Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind remarks. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Delegation Reports4990499012:54:004990Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the European Institutions from 20 April to 30 April 1998. This delegation was, I believe, one of the most important to be undertaken by this parliament in recent years. I say that because it was the first in a series of biennial visits to European institutions since the Australian-European Union joint declaration of June 1997. It showed Australia's commitment to the new and much more extensive bilateral relationship.We sometimes forget that Europe as a whole is in fact our biggest market and there are major changes taking place in terms of European trade both in a multilateral and a bilateral sense. There are reforms beginning in many of the European Union's basic policies, the common agricultural policy being of particular importance to Australia. The advent of the EU Economic and Monetary Union on 1 January next year and the EU's negotiations with six countries for accession and the possibility of another five on the horizon have great implications for Australia. Europe is also very much involved in Asia. It was important to address these issues, too, with the European authorities.The access given this delegation to the European parliament, the European Commission, the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and NATO was outstanding. I must say that the reception given to us at all these institutions was first class. Discussions were frank, relevant and, as can be seen in the body of the report, of benefit not only to us but also to the parliament, the government and ultimately to the country as a whole. Parliamentary delegations are often described as mere junkets, but a study of this report will show just how effective they can be. Parliamentarians have a great capacity to be able to talk and to negotiate with other parliamentarians. While that may seem obvious, it does allow for questioning, the probing of issues and the laying bare of facts not always available in conventional diplomatic situations. Certainly, this was a very tenacious group who worked well together across party lines in making sure that Australia's point of view was recognised, in addition to gathering information on such diverse issues as human rights to aviation policy to food safety issues. It is not widely known, for example, that the European parliament has a separate delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand. It is essential that relationships with that group are well maintained by not only our post in Brussels but also this parliament. The chairman of that group, Jim Nicholson MEP, is very serious about this relationship and I hope that all members of this delegation will stay in contact with him and his diverse delegation membership. We have many thankyous to make and obviously there are far too many to list here. Those who helped us are listed and thanked in the report, but in particular I would like to thank Mr Peter Shannon, the Charge in Paris, his team at the Australian Embassy and our Ambassador in Belgium who is responsible for Belgium, Luxembourg and the European communities.Ambassador Kenyon and his wife accompanied us throughout the delegation. His staff, including Jane Drake-Brockman, Dr Alex Brooking and Anne Owens, were magnificent. However, special thanks should also be given to the Third Secretary from Brussels, Anthea Griffin. Organising delegations and running them on a day-to-day basis is a huge task. This was undoubtedly one of the best, if not the best, in which I have been involved, and I think that Miss Griffin can take great credit for that.Eighty years later, the delegation was on the Western Front for Anzac Day and was an integral part of that commemoration. It was personally one of the greatest honours for me in my parliamentary career to be part of this year's commemoration in Peronne, Villers-Bretonneux, Bullecourt, Ieper and all points in between. The leader of the delegation and I had the honour of laying the wreath at the Menin Gate at the 8 p.m. traditional commemoration on Anzac Day, certainly a most emotional experience.No-one could fail to be moved by the large crowds who attended each commemoration during that day, many French and Belgians but literally dozens of Australians as well. There were backpackers, tourists and youth groups such as the choir of St Peter's Lutheran College in Adelaide who, through their performances, made us all very proud indeed. The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod, Andrea Griffiths, proved to be an outstanding secretary to the delegation and deserves special thanks, as does the leader of the delegation, the Deputy President of the Senate, Sue West. On behalf of Senator Gibson and the members for Riverina (Mr Hicks), Fowler (Mr Ted Grace) and Fraser (Mr Dargavel), I would like to thank them most sincerely.12:59:004991Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—I would like to support the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Fadden (Mr Jull), who was the deputy leader of the delegation to the European institutions. I would also like to second his words and congratulate Senator Sue West and, in particular, Andrea Griffiths, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod, who was secretary of the committee.As the member for Fadden said, it is important that we keep contact with Europe. I know that many of us in Australia are a little confused about the various institutions of the European sector. For example, we have the European Union, the Council of Europe, the European Council Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament, the European Commissioner for Human Rights, and it goes on, and many of us really do not know what their roles and responsibilities are. What we do know is that Europe is a large market. It is very important to and in the best interests of Australia, and it is important that we keep close contact with the European institutions to make sure that we know what is going on there.I very much enjoyed being part of the delegation to the European institutions. As the member for Fadden said, it was a very good delegation that worked across party lines and put Australia's case in those areas we believed it should be put. I was fortunate enough to attend a meeting of the Agricultural Subcommittee of the European Parliament. It was very interesting to listen to what was being said there about the common agricultural policy. Also, mention has already been made here today about the enlargement of the European Union, and we hope that will have ramifications for Australia, but there seems to be some doubt as to when that enlargement might take place. Of course, when it does take place, there will be many people in the enlarged union who will be farmers, and there will be increased production. One wonders whether the subsidies now paid to European farmers will continue to be paid, given the number of farmers who will be adding to the economy there.The member for Fadden also spoke about the trip to the Western Front and to the towns of Bullecourt, Villers-Brettoneux and Ypres. One of the things that impressed me very much in those areas was the high regard and respect for Australia. It is very evident. I came back with a strong feeling that we really must inculcate in our students here how important that particular phase of Australian history is to the total history of Australia. When you look on the line upon line of white tombstones there and the flower of Australian manhood lying beneath them—and in particular at one place called the `Windmill' where more Australian blood has been shed than anywhere else on earth—you understand that those battlefields are a very important part of our heritage. We must teach our young people to honour those that have gone before because they have set the standards that we must try to emulate.It was a wonderful experience to be there and, like the member for Fadden, I was honoured to be there, particularly when he and Senator Sue West laid a wreath at the Menin Gate. When you see the names of Australians written on the honour roll there—many of them have no known grave—it brings not only a feeling of sadness but also a feeling of pride that you are an Australian. In that part of the world in particular, you are very much honoured by those people who still remember with great affection those who served.It was a wonderful delegation, and I would like to thank the parliament for the opportunity afforded me to attend the delegation. Once again, I would like to thank Senator Sue West, David Jull and, of course, Andrea Griffiths. I would also like to thank our diplomatic corps overseas, whom we must be very proud of. There is no doubt that they are very capable and very efficient people who are highly regarded by the European Community for the work they do for and on behalf of Australia.Committees49924992499213:04:004992Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 1996-97 , together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This is the third report on the Reserve Bank that the committee has tabled during this parliament. This report addresses significant monetary policy issues and some prudential matters discussed between the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and the committee at a public hearing held in Melbourne on 7 May this year.As I said at the time of tabling the committee's last report on the Reserve Bank, this is one of the most important tasks that the committee undertakes. The Reserve Bank's appearance before the financial institutions committee has become a significant avenue of accountability and transparency for the bank, with increased public interest in the proceedings.Obviously the most significant issue discussed at the hearing, and thus in the report, was the worsening Asian crisis and its impact on the Australian economy. As we are all well aware, at the core of this problem are the very rapid adjustments that the countries involved have had to make to their external positions to stop their exchange rates from falling below the extremely low levels they reached in late 1997.At the time of the hearing, the major uncertainty was Japan. As well, recent political and social events in Indonesia have surpassed previous expectations of change. The bank in no way sought to downplay the effects of Asia on the Australian economy, noting it was the most significant identifiable external shock since the OPEC second shock in 1979. However, at the time of the hearing, the bank believed that the Australian economy had coped quite well, largely because we were in good shape as the crisis evolved. We had strong domestic demand, low inflation, low interest rates, financial markets that have behaved sensibly and international investors in the bond market drawing distinctions between Australia and Asia.Our exchange rate has depreciated against the US dollar and other major currencies, but this is an understandable market reaction to the deterioration in our international trading position. Unemployment is dipping, and dropped below eight per cent in April. The current account of the balance of payments is expected to widen, but the Governor said that this is not a sign of economic policy failure and trusts the market will treat it accordingly. The bank's response to this situation was a source of considerable discussion. The Governor also said at the hearing that the board considered the present setting of monetary policy as the right one, and most members of the committee agreed. With the situation in Asia worsening, and the second wave of impact for Australia now being felt, the Asian situation will undoubtedly be the focus of our agenda for the next hearing to be held in November.Other significant matters discussed by the committee were the improved interest rates for small business, the level of national savings, Australia's role in the Indonesian International Monetary Fund's support packages, the impact of the United States monetary policy on Australia and prudential matters related to the establishment of the new Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and the year 2000 problem.I would like to thank the Reserve Bank, particularly the Governor, Mr Macfarlane, and the staff of the Financial Institutions and Public Administration secretariat, especially Bev Forbes and Chris Paterson, for their assistance with the inquiry and to all members of the committee for their professional approach to the public hearing and for their contributions to this report. Clearly, the nature of the questions and the responses at the hearing reflected the very high quality of this very professional team. I commend the report to the House.13:08:004993Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—As the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) indicated, one the most important roles of the parliamentary committee system is the public hearing every six months with the Governor of the Reserve Bank concerning the conduct of monetary policy. It is my view, a view shared by the member for Isaacs (Mr Wilton) in our dissenting report, that the committee report to the parliament should be more than a recycling of views expressed at the hearing. I think it is healthy for the committee and, indeed, the parliamentary process to bring critical analysis to the sort of material that was presented at the public hearing by Governor Macfarlane and his colleagues.On 7 May I thought that the Governor was engaging in elements of boosterism about the state of the Australian economy. I would argue that since that time my suspicion has been confirmed, because the Governor was clearly worried about the shaky confidence in the Australian dollar, and the dollar has been significantly devalued on international markets since 7 May. He was also clearly worried about the situation with interest rates. Since early May there has been considerable upward pressure on Australian interest rates.The Governor was engaging in elements of boosterism, but I think that is a legitimate role for a governor to play in those circumstances, given the questionable market confidence and the concern about Asia. I think it is a legitimate role for the Governor, as the spokesperson of the Reserve Bank, to put those views, to talk up as best he can the Australian situation. What I think is important, though, for the committee is to bring critical analysis to the parliament in its report, not to fall for the elements of boosterism that one would expect from the Governor but to look behind some of the arguments and bring factual analysis to the committee process.The purpose of the minority report presented by the member for Isaacs and me is to question the view that the current account deficit problem Australia currently experiences is substantially different from the last three times—the mid-1980s, the late 1980s and then again in 1994. Just last week we had an independent financial analysis showing that even without the impact of Asia the Australian current account deficit would still be getting out to 5½ per cent of GDP.If you look through recent history in this nation, one would see that the current account deficit problem in the mid-1980s was a product of external shock, as it is now, nudging up towards six per cent of GDP. The experience in the late 1980s showed that the Commonwealth at that time had its budget in underlying surplus, but due to the failings of the twin deficit theory we still experienced a significant current account deficit. There are similarities between the experience in 1998 and the experiences of the Australian economy in the mid-1980s and again in the late 1980s.There are few rules, if any, in economics, but one of them is that a small trading nation like ours with poor national savings cannot grow faster than its major trading partners without a spill over on to the external account, without a blow-out in its current account deficit. This indicates, of course, the failure of the Howard government's policies with regard to national savings. Those policies and performance have been disappointing in recent years. Improvements in public sector savings have been at the expense of private savings, including $5 billion in fiscal drag and significant cuts to essential services in health, education and child care.The public sector savings performance by the Commonwealth has also been at the expense of the states and territories. Private savings have fallen as many households have been forced to pay for higher tax liabilities and higher user charges from household savings. The 1998-99 budget forecasts a significant drop in the household savings ratio from 4.7 per cent in 1996-97 to 2.75 per cent in 1998-99—one of the lowest ratios of any nation in the Western world. These trends are confirmed by the chart at page 1.12 of Budget Paper No. 1. It shows a decrease in national savings since 1996 with the rate anchored well below 20 per cent of GDP.These matters need to be placed on the parliamentary record. There are significant similarities between the current account deficit situation now with its three predecessors—the mid-1980s, the late 1980s and the mid-1990s. I think the committee needs to note those matters, to have a firm historical record in place and not to simply recycle the views and the type of boosterism that was engaged in by the Governor at the public hearing. It is healthy to have a dissenting report. I look forward to future hearings of this nature and future debates within the committee about the critical analysis and the historical fact.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?4994Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills4994r5464994Bill presented by Mr Albanese.13:15:004994Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I present the Superannuation (Entitlements of same sex couples) Bill 1998 . I am extremely pleased to be introducing this bill into the House of Representatives today. The aim of this bill is to remove discrimination against same sex couples with respect to the superannuation benefits they receive. Superannuation is increasingly important for Australian workers. Legislation introduced by the Keating Labor government ensured that all Australians have access to superannuation and put in place measures to ensure a minimum employer contribution for wage and salary earners in Australia. Governments encourage people to contribute to a superannuation scheme because it is a win-win situation. The individual wins and the country wins because national savings increase.However, if superannuation is to play a role in the government's retirement income policy, then all people who contribute should have equal access to their super upon retirement. At present, this is not the case. There is a significant group of wage and salary earners in Australia who have little incentive to contribute to a super scheme because their spouses do not have access to superannuation benefits upon their death.As the legislation currently stands, gay and lesbian couples are clearly discriminated against. The explanatory memorandum to this bill outlines that this discrimination includes:. On retirement of the contributor, refusal to pay a joint pension for the contributor and his or her same sex partner;. On retirement of the contributor, refusal to pay a lump sum benefit in respect of a same sex partner;. On the death of the contributor, refusal to pay death benefits to a same sex partner, either by reversionary pension or lump sum benefit;. On the death of the contributor, failure to investigate or acknowledge the claim to dependency of a child of a same sex couple when the contributor is not the biological parent of the child; and. On the death of the contributor, payment of death benefits to the estate of the contributor rather than to the same sex partner as a dependant.This bill is an important step forward for those thousands of couples around Australia who are currently discriminated against by superannuation fund trustees on the basis of their sexual preference.I can assure members that this is not just an issue relevant to my inner city Sydney electorate. In every corner of Australia, gay and lesbian couples are quietly going on with their lives, working and caring for their families.It is important to stress that this is not about introducing some kind of special rights for gay and lesbian couples. This is about equal rights—rights that every other Australian worker living in a domestic relationship with someone they love would be perfectly entitled to expect. This legislation allows a gay or lesbian worker to properly provide for their surviving partner and children in the event of their death—something which is a perfectly reasonable expectation for any couple.Last week I had the pleasure of speaking at a very well attended rally organised by the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights lobby outside State Parliament House. In spite of the torrential rain and cold, thousands of people came onto the streets to demonstrate in favour of equal rights for gay and lesbian communities. Those protesters were not asking for special treatment; they were asking for equal treatment.An article in today's Sydney Morning Herald details how British MPs are likely to vote overwhelmingly today in favour of equalising the age of consent in Britain. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has said:This is an issue of equality, and because it concerns the equal rights of our citizens, this is an issue not just for those who are gay but for all of us who are concerned about the type of society in which we live.I concur with those remarks. I urge all members of this House to consider those words carefully. This legislation does not aim to give additional allowances to gay and lesbian couples, but it does aim to place them in an equal position with all other Australian workers and their partners.I strongly urge all members of this House, whether they be on the government side, on the opposition side or on the crossbenches, to examine their consciences, to support this bill and to support equal rights at the workplace with respect to superannuation benefits. I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum.Leave granted.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills4995r5474995Bill presented by Mr Rocher.13:19:004995Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—The Taxation Administration Amendment (Public Rulings) Bill 1998 proposes that all future public rulings—PRs—and determinations—TDs—that are effectively PRs should be deemed disallowable instruments. Briefly, disallowable instruments under other than tax legislation must be tabled in both the House and the Senate for 15 sitting days. If either the House or Senate votes to disallow, then the regulation lapses. As a consequence of correspondence from the Treasurer (Mr Costello), I am willing to consider an amend ment that PRs and TDs must be disallowable by both the House and the Senate, subject to views about that from legal and accounting circles.Other reasons given by the Treasurer for not supporting my bill cannot be argued in the time allocated by the government to me today. Suffice to say that the government's reasoning aside, it has not offered a constructive alternative in the spirit of the taxpayers charter to allay widespread disquiet about current Australian Taxation Office practices in this context.My reasons for the proposal include but are not necessarily limited to: PRs and TDs issued to interpret laws previously passed may not reflect the stated intention of the parliament; the subject matter is hardly ever debated; affected parties are not always given an opportunity to consider interpretations prior to issue as is usually possible with proposed legislation; and some have retrospective application, often by incorporation of earlier rulings and determinations. New tax law is sometimes effectively made by the commissioner in rulings without the precaution of scrutiny in the parliament.Another amendment to my bill, prompted by the Law Council of Australia, is also foreshadowed. It will provide that, in addition to PRs issued being disallowable, withdrawals of such instruments should also be disallowable. Following further consultation, other minor changes to the bill may be sensible.Having canvassed this proposal as widely as an individual member's resources allow, I can report wide support from interested parties in the private sector. In that context, and with those sentiments in mind, I commend the bill to the House for its very serious consideration.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business4996499613:22:004996Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I 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.In addressing the House on this matter, it is very important to acknowledge Australia's position in history in relation to science and technology issues and our strong and credible position over the last century of innovation in areas of mining and agriculture, in which Australia has certainly predominated in the first 100 years since the colonies became well established. Australia has a very sound reputation for innovation in those particular areas, and we have followed with them in order to ensure Australia's manufacturing and industrial bases have been able to expand beyond the original areas of agriculture and mining, for which this country was originally famous.After the Second World War, the motor vehicle industry, the textile industry and a wide range of other domestic industries, working in partnership with organisations in the public sector like the CSIRO, have responded very well to innovations in their own areas, but of course those things are no longer enough. Australia has made very substantial contributions to the world research infrastructure and Australia contributes above its population ratio in respect of our contribution to basic and applied research in world journals. But if we were looking at the last century and at those countries who have succeeded in it, we would have to come to the conclusion that the United States of America has been a predominantly successful country in the last century and we would have to ask ourselves why that is the case. One of the clearest explanations for that is the way in which the United States has invested substantially in research and development. Indeed, it is estimated that half of the wealth created in the United States in the last 50 years or so has been due to investment in research and development.Vanavear Bush, a prominent United States scientist and government adviser after the Second World War, in his landmark report `Science: the endless frontier', stressed the need for substantial government and public sector investment in innovation both basic and applied. Indeed, many of the inventions which we now use today and see as very common in our lives have come out of the early basic research which was sponsored by that. Not the least, for example, is the very early studies of the DNA molecule. That was very basic and fundamental research in those days but it has now led to our understanding of genetic engineering and our ability to develop new and more effective drugs and crops and more nutritious foods and to generally advance health care.Ultra precise atomic clocks, which were invented to test the laws of physics—very fundamental research—have become the heart of things like the global positioning system, which is now a multibillion dollar industry used for navigation, emergency rescue, tracking commercial vehicles and perhaps soon air traffic control. Basic research on the way in which liquids pass through holes—which was very fundamental and obscure at the time—has led to improved fuel injection systems for cars, ink jet printers that are on most people's desks and even such things as artificial heart valves. And the list goes on. The investment in fundamental research has repaid enormous dividends in the United States and in other countries that have attempted similar things.We have to avoid the 21st century also being predominantly just an American century. If Australia continues with our position as being basically land farmers who use the land as a quarry, we will be in a very adverse economic position in the next century if that is the only basis for our resource development. The reality is that the long-term trend for resources is down. The reality is that science will find new and better ways of discovering new mineral resources and of processing those mineral resources, but the reality in economic terms will be that the value of those mineral resources will decline in the long term.Agriculture is in very much the same state. Genetic engineering will mean that the focus of profit in agriculture will shift to those who own the intellectual property. Rather than farmers garnisheeing the majority of the profit from agricultural enterprise, those who invent and manipulate the genes of agricultural products and then license the use of those products to farmers will be the group in our society who will obtain the maximum profit from agriculture. Farmers will be left in a very adverse situation if it is not Australian intellectual property which they are using and employing to generate higher returns from agriculture.We certainly have a very good base to start from. We have the CSIRO, our university infrastructure and the CRC system, which was established by a Labor government some years ago and which has been very innovative and successful. Many of our companies have very good R&D programs and have displayed considerable innovation. Of course, we should never underestimate the enormous value of our well-educated work force which is able to participate in these programs and use the technology to its maximum advantage.There is also very much a social dimension to this issue and it is one that was identified by Einstein as far back as 1931, when he was speaking to the science community in an address at the California Institute of Technology in that year. He said:Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavours, concern for the great unsolved problems of the organization of labor and the distribution of goods—in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.Some 70 years later that turns out to have been a very prescient observation. His understanding of the social dimension of science was as powerful as his understanding of the very fundamental nature of the universe itself.The last 100 years have seen enormous advances in western communities in their health and economic wellbeing. The life span, which is the basic measure, has risen from 47 years in 1890 to some 76 or more years now, and that is an enormous benefit for the developed countries of this world and for the wealthy components of those countries. Fundamentally, we still have a situation where 80 per cent of the world's population produces about 15 per cent of the world's economic output. To put that the other way, some 85 per cent of the output of the world is produced by only 20 per cent of the population. In the next century, we will need to respond to demands from the world community and to demands from the less privileged sections of our own communities for health care, energy, resources and information and to address the very serious issues of environmental degradation and the like, because in the next century the environmental degradation we now see in its initial phases will be a clear and present danger to our society.Science can respond at both the technical and the social level. Science understands now the need to communicate with its public to ensure that the public is inspired by scientific discovery and that public policy makers are sufficiently aware of the issues to fund ongoing basic and applied scientific research. But science will not be able to do this alone. It needs to work hand in hand with public policy. The public policy agenda at both an economic and a social level will depend very heavily in the next century on our understanding of science and of those technological issues. There has always been something of a bipartisan agreement—not only in this country but in many other parts of the developed world such as the United States and the United Kingdom—on the need for scientific advancement. It has usually been founded very much on our concern for medical and health research. But the fundamental issue is that, in the next century, science will be a fundamental social and economic driver as well and if we are to profit from the next century—if Australia is to generate its share of the world's economic resources, if our people are to advance—we will need a strong partnership between those who manage public policy in this country and those who provide the scientific leadership to ensure that the two work together in solving our scientific, technological, social and economic problems at the same time.That means that this parliament will need to focus very heavily on science and technological issues as well. Some of the most predominant that will focus our attention in the next century will include, as one example, genetic engineering. That will have an enormous effect not only on the economy and on agriculture but also on health care and on our understanding of the way in which medical ethics proceed as well. Gene technology will place enormous stresses on our fundamental tenets of medical ethics and on the laws which relate to it, and the community must be in a position to respond. That one technology alone addresses all those issues of social change, economic advancement and medical and personal ethics.This parliament is ill-equipped to move into that kind of world. Without the sort of committee which I am proposing today—a joint parliamentary committee which can focus exclusively on issues of science and technology, on the social and economic questions which flow from those issues and on the legal and ethical questions which flow from our unquestioned and rapid advances in science and technology—Australia will be ill-prepared on all those fronts to meet the challenge of the 21st century. Fundamentally, it will be a science century, a century in which science and technology play predominant roles in ensuring our economic security, as well as the social and community issues which we must all address. If the parliament is to do that successfully, it will need the kind of leadership which not only governments need to provide but also the parliament itself needs to provide. A fundamental component of that will be the committee which I am proposing to this House and which I commend to the House today.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:32:004999Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—The member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans) has today moved a motion providing for an extra committee in the area of science and technology. The motion gives direction that the committee should be specifically reporting on matters relating to science and technology. The 14 points within the motion go to the establishment of the committee, voting rights, subcommittees, quorums and the election of a chairman. However, not once in the motion does he discuss the need for such a committee. Not once does the member for Bonython in his motion point out the demand for such a committee. Not once does he reflect on the work of the committees already and currently established.The community at large is becoming more and more sceptical about anything that is a government creation, particularly in reference to bureaucracy and administrative burdens. To establish a joint standing committee on science and technology would ignore the efforts presently being undertaken by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. This committee has been at the forefront of inquiries and issues that affect a whole gamut of issues pertaining to the subjects of industry, science and technology.I refer to the committee's undertaking of research and development into public policy reform, which goes to the heart of technology. To establish a further joint standing committee would be a further impost on the secretariat's work and it is already fully encompassed under the current committee structure. It only takes a scant observation of previous inquiries over the past eight years to determine the level of interest that this particular committee has had on science and technology issues. One of these inquiries was on policies to develop innovation in Australia and the resulting report in 1995 was called Innovation: A concept to market. There was an inquiry into the development, use and release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, with a 1992 report entitled, Genetic manipulation: The threat or the glory. The member for Bonython today in his motion spoke highly of genetic engineering. He had a report in 1995. What happened to the recommendations of the report is another matter.Another inquiry was into superconductivity and related new materials and the report was tabled in November 1988. At the moment this committee, of which the member for Bonython and I are members, is embarking on a very intensive inquiry on research and development. That inquiry—including its terms of reference—is focusing on important issues, such as the amount of research and development being carried out in Australia; the nature of research and development being undertaken and whether it be basic or applied; the relevance of research and development to the commercial needs of industry; the level of investment in research infrastructure and equipment; the scientific and technological skill base; and demands for scientists, technologists and engineers. We are also looking at the education and training opportunities for further research staff.Therefore, even if the opposition argue that more should be done to focus on science and technology issues, they are presently ignoring the impact of present and past inquiries by this House. Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that this committee has been reporting on issues for at least four of the last parliaments going back to 1987. The Labor Party's motion here today lacks conviction and basis. If it is something that they were so passionate about, why didn't they do something about it when they were in power? Why didn't they do anything about it in the whole time that they were in power?I am well aware of the impact of science and technology on the Australian economy. I agree with the member for Bonython: we have a good history. He focused a lot on the United States, an overseas country, but we have a lot to be proud of here in Australia. We are at the forefront of technologies such as medical technology and the areas of implant and hearing devices, mining, geophysical and computer technology. We should never lose track of the fact that we are leaders in innovation and that we develop some of the best technology in the world here. Let us never downplay that.I would also like to join with him in his support for the CRC and CSIRO. They do a fabulous job in this country, particularly in the area of marine science research. We are leaders in the world. Science and technology grants are valued at upwards of $715 million for the year 1998-99. It is up from $585 million, which is what was spent under the Labor government in 1995-96. This federal government has supported science and technology and innovation and continues to further support development and growth.I know that in my electorate in Scarborough there is a company called AI Scientific that has been a leader in robotic systems for sorting and duplicating blood samples. This project was six years in development, but the company claims that the project only came to fruition when the company received a research and development grant. This is an excellent example of how local industry can work with the government to produce a product that is highly regarded and will be a very strong proponent in markets such as New Zealand and South-East Asia.I made a point earlier that the community has long called for a more streamlined process when it comes to government. The community wants a transparent government that is growing less complicated, not more complicated. There presently exists in this parliament nine general purpose standing committees, 11 joint statutory and joint standing committees and eight domestic committees. That is a total of 28 committees, which is far too many. Members are already finding it difficult to spread themselves around the current committee system. They would be more effective if they had fewer committees to attend. Even shadow ministers, of which the member for Bonython is one, would have exhaustive demands on their time. This would increase their already intense workload.I would like to draw to the House's attention and to the attention of the member for Bonython a recent report tabled in May Ten years on: A review of the House of Representatives committee system. The committee comprised members from both sides of the House. The report suggested that were too many committees and that a number of issues had to be addressed: the number of committees, the need for some joint committees and the number of committee positions which members of the House were required to fill. Do you know what they concluded? They concluded that there were too many committees, that the House general purpose committee should provide a balanced and comprehensive coverage and should remain with expanded functions, and that there are currently too many positions for members to fill.In real terms, the establishment of a committee solely on the topic of science and technology would increase the demands of members and senators, increase the need for more secretariats and provide further pressures on the House. As a member of the industry, science and technology committee, I personally acknowledge the tireless efforts of the secretariat, which is currently led by Paul McMahon. The motion put forward by the member for Bonython today may be high on administrative detail and process, but it is unconvincing when it comes to the need for impact and the need for such a committee. There already exists a committee that focuses on these issues. This government has been at the forefront of science and innovation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members500150015001Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—It has come to my attention that at the most recent meeting of the Heathmont branch of the Liberal Party, which is located in the Deakin electorate, a letter from Premier Kennett requesting or ordering that One Nation should go last on the Liberal Party how-to-vote card was tabled. I understand that this provoked a strong reaction from members, who allegedly responded by threatening not to hand out cards for the member for Deakin (Mr Barresi) if he puts One Nation last. This is contrary to Premier Kennett's assurances about the Victorian branch's position. It is now necessary that the member for Deakin provide to this House an assurance that Pauline Hanson's party will be put last on the how-to-vote cards for the Liberal Party in Deakin and that they will not engage in the same disgraceful and sleazy deal that their Queensland counterparts engaged in, they being prepared to divide this nation internally and diminish it externally in the quest for preference votes from One Nation. It is important that the member for Deakin provides to the House and the electorate of Deakin an assurance that One Nation will be put last on his how-to-vote card.50015001Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Last week I had the opportunity of observing at first hand the work carried out by the Save the Children Blacktown Family Support Centre. This centre provides a wide range of support and counselling services to hundreds of children and their parents across the western suburbs of Sydney. Presently the Blacktown support centre is operating out of temporary premises at Blackett while new premises are being built in Blacktown itself. These new premises will allow the save our children group to double its client base in western Sydney.There is a great need for this service when you realise how difficult it is for some parents to consistently have the wellbeing and safety of their children in their minds 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This takes an emotional toll on parents who are doing it alone or who feel that they are doing it alone because their partner is either not available or not interested.Currently there is a campaign being conducted to raise $1 million to complete the Blacktown centre. I urge all who can, particularly people in western Sydney, to support this campaign. The need is great when you consider the stress on parents, particularly single parents, to provide a safe environment for their children, be it to play in the park, to walk home from school or to play in the front yard, all free from the adult world of violence, paedophilia and dangers caused by motor vehicles and household accidents. We should realise how stressful it is for parents just to do the simple things in life, such as filling the car with petrol and then taking two toddlers out of the car to go and pay the bill. (Time expired)50025002McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—When the people of Queensland went to the polls at the state election, the Labor Party put its collective hand across its heart and vowed never to have a bar of One Nation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) told the nation that the Labor Party would not flinch, `Even if it costs us government,' he said. But there they were, the Labor Party team, out at the polling booths in my electorate handing out a second card. It was a card which asked voters to give Labor their second preference if they voted for One Nation. As is often the case, Labor was saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite.They stood next to me at a Brisbane polling booth with this card calling on One Nation preferences. Not only were the cards handed out by ALP members wearing their ALP badges but these cards bear the formal authority of Mike Kaiser, the ALP secretary. The people of Australia are calling for straight shooting from its leaders, yet they are still getting little more than cant and hypocrisy from the Labor Party.50025002Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—A couple of weeks ago in this place I made a speech about scabs and scabbing in relation to the waterfront dispute. The mock indignation on the part of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) was the joke of the week. One of the things I said was that after those scabs had served their purpose they would be thrown aside like stinking rags. The position I took in that statement has been vindicated. That is precisely what has happened. They have been thrown aside like stinking rags. One of them, on the way out through the gate from the wharf, said, `I have one lesson for workers in Australia. Wherever you work, join a union, and make sure you join the most militant one that is available.' They learnt their lesson, as I said they would.The circle of deceit and betrayal in connection with that dispute is almost complete. The Patrick partners and Corrigan betrayed their union members. McGauchie and the National Farmers Federation now have betrayed the scabs. They have told them to get off the wharves. There is nothing left for them. Those people have gone away with only the smell of scabbing hanging around their necks, and they will wear that stench of scabbing for the rest of their years. They have learnt their lesson, and what they are trying to do now is to say to all Australians, `If you are employed, join your union and make sure it is a militant one, because only a militant union will protect you; no-one else will. Those people who ask you to scab will not give you any protection ever.' (Time expired)50025002Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—The people of Australia believe that one of the few things that links the government and the opposition is our attitude to trade and trading terms. What people fail to recognise is that the parliament's commitment to a freer world trading environment has been to the advantage of all Australians. Many feel, for example, that the citrus industry has been betrayed by the fact that imported orange juice comes from Brazil. Too few recognise the fact that allowing orange juice to come in from Brazil has now opened up markets in the USA for Australian citrus growers—the most lucrative markets currently available to citrus growers anywhere in the world, markets which would otherwise have been closed.Many people believe that, for example, allowing Canadian pork into Australia has been entirely to the detriment of Australian pork producers. It is true that pork producers are suffering and that something needs to be done about the level of suffering they are currently enduring, but what also needs to be recognised is that if we were to lock Australian pork out of the market we would then close the Canadian market to both Australian beef and Australian sugar and that five times as much Australian primary product goes into Canada as comes from Canada into Australia. In this area of freer trade, Australians need to know that the nation has won far more than it has lost and that those who are suffering in both the citrus and pork industries have been the target of relief packages from the previous government and from this government. (Time expired)50035003Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—There is a crisis in legal aid in this country. I am getting call after call in my office from people who are demanding to get justice but cannot do so because they are ineligible for legal aid. As a result, people are accepting liability for another person's wrongdoing and they are pleading guilty when they are innocent. The tension and dysfunction that this produces in society is a dangerous trend. There is a way out of that.If $1 were charged on every legal process filed in Queensland, that would immediately raise more than $1 million a year to start a fund for people who cannot get access to justice. At the same time, it is a painless way of doing it. As well as that, when people are successful with claims for damages, part of that damages claim would then go back into the fund and keep regenerating it—providing access to justice for a great mass of people out there who cannot get it. And I mean ordinary average Australians. People with a mortgage, an income of about $30,000 a year, think they can get legal aid, but they do not have a chance. There are all sorts of people—widows, pensioners—who cannot get access to justice because of this system. So I urge the government to look at this way that I am now suggesting of providing money for access to justice, a painless way that is available. I have suggested it already to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and to the Attorney-General (Mr Williams), but they have written back and said, `It is a good idea but we cannot do it at this stage.' (Time expired)50035003Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I would like to tell the parliament this afternoon about a wonderful Australian in my electorate of Herbert in Townsville. Filippo Mele has for many years supported the Townsville Junior Soccer Association. Yesterday I was very pleased and proud to be able to open the under-11 years carnival where 16 teams turned out from across the whole of North Queensland. The teams came from cities as remote as Mount Isa, Cairns, Gladstone, Rockhampton, the Whitsundays and so on.In looking after the young people of Australia and of North Queensland, these teams do some wonderful things. For example, the Whitsunday Highlanders, a group of about nine teams, play a competition in their local area, and some of them have to drive six hours just to play a game. Yesterday's march past and opening of the carnival was a wonderful and outstanding event. Filippo Mele who sponsors the carnival has made soccer his life. After finishing his own soccer career, he then moved on to look after the youngsters as he does today. The carnival that he runs and sponsors is a wonderful event. In fact, I was told yesterday that it is probably the most important and well-run event of its type in Australia. We are pretty proud that we have that event in Townsville and we will go on supporting junior soccer. (Time expired)50035003Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I want to support the comments of the member for Greenway (Mr Mossfield) with respect to the Save the Children Foundation. I was fortunate enough to have lunch with the foundation's patron, Barbara Holborrow, just last Thursday. They are attempting to set up a group in my electorate, and I wish them well.I also rise today in support of the New South Wales Teachers Federation and the 17,000 government school teachers who stopped work for two hours last week in protest against the Howard government's attack on public education in this country. The Australian Labor Party is committed to a strong non-government school sector—and we do believe that parents should have a choice—but that funding should not come at the expense of government schools. But the abolition of the former Labor government's new schools policy, the introduction of the Howard government's enrolment benchmark adjustment and the common youth allowance all threaten the most important principle in public education in this country—that is, access of equity. That is the principle that all children, regardless of the means of their parents, should have access to a decent education.The Howard government's ideologically driven approach to education in this country threatens to turn that principle on its head, and it should be condemned for it. This has particular impact in rural areas like those in my electorate where public schools rely on a critical mass, rely on a certain enrolment of children to remain viable, and this could be put at threat. (Time expired)50045004Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—I want to report to this House that last week the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) made an announcement regarding an alternative equity market to be established, and BSX Syndicate in Bendigo was successful in attracting some federal government funds for this proposal. The Bendigo Bank is a member of that syndicate as well as Ernst and Young, the large accountancy firm, the City of Greater Bendigo and principals of the Bendigo Stock Exchange.The Bendigo Stock Exchange has a very colourful history dating right back to the 1880s when it was a participant in listings of goldmining shares in the Bendigo area and, of course, a very vigorous exchange and attracted a lot of attention. In fact, it was one of the busiest exchanges in Australia's history.The BSX Syndicate has brought forward a very high-tech alternative market where people seeking equity or capital injections into their business for small to medium sized enterprises can in fact contribute to this market by a matching scheme, which will be done by through high-teching through the Internet and other high-tech systems. It will provide the opportunity for small to medium sized enterprises to participate in equity funding. (Time expired)50045004Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I wish to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) has failed to get rid of the Maritime Union and has failed to undermine the working rights of waterfront workers. The problem is that the minister now wants to attack another section of the Australian work force, some of Australia's lowest paid, by taking away their 15 per cent loading as part of the Building Services Award.An adult full-time cleaner gets paid gross $412.40 per week. Compare this with the full-time adult ordinary time earnings of $720 a week. These are certainly not the wharfies that the minister likes to attack on a regular basis. When the minister picks on cleaners, he is picking on the wages of the lowest paid in the community, the type of people that the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has attacked with respect to taking away their award rights. For part-time cleaners, this is often their only job or one of two jobs.In Victoria, a part-time cleaner now gets $12.05 per hour plus $1.57 shift money per hour. If the minister gets his way, it will mean part-time cleaners in Victoria will be paid $10.48 per hour plus $1.57 shift money per hour. If he gets his way, it will mean for a part-time cleaner working two hours every night a loss of $31.40 per fortnight—2¼ hours per week, $35.33 per fortnight. I adopt the view that everything the minister touches undermines the jobs and job security of all Australians. (Time expired)50045004Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—The Eden regional forest agreement is currently under negotiation, and the submissions will close at the end of this month. On Thursday night last week, I attended a public meeting in Eden of nearly 200 people from the community who were there to express their support for a good outcome from the RFA which will provide some jobs back in the region. I also opened earlier last week a shopfront for the Forest Protection Society in Eden and then one on Friday in Bombala for the same organisation which are there supporting the communities to get some jobs back in as a result of this RFA.At the public meeting on Thursday night, we found out that the New South Wales south coast labour council was supporting what is called option A, which is the green option, which would destroy jobs in the south east. The New South Wales Labor government is supporting option B, which would also destroy many jobs in the south east. We have one union supporting option C, which is the lowest possible scenario so we could keep some reasonable jobs. I encourage all people in the communities to get submissions in and counter some of the scurrilous work being done by organisations like the Wilderness Society, which are doorknocking in city areas and signing people up to go for the green option which would destroy jobs. (Time expired)50055005Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—Yesterday morning, I heard the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand (Mr Beazley), being interviewed on television by Laurie Oakes. Let me say, I have seldom felt as inspired or as encouraged as a member of the Labor Party as I did in hearing that brilliant interview. It was statesmanlike. It was visionary. It was courageous. It was forward looking. It was, undoubtedly, the most impressive and the most significant interview that I have ever heard on television, certainly the most impressive that I have heard conducted by Laurie Oakes, a journalist of national standing.I am saying to the Leader of the Opposition now that, although I will not be in the next parliament, I will be looking forward to seeing him here as Prime Minister, putting into effect all those firm undertakings that he gave to the Australian people and which have been so widely applauded around this nation. It was a statesmanlike performance, and it was deserving of our future Labor Prime Minister—Kim Beazley, the member for Brand. After the next election, when he has the opportunity to put into operation all of those commitments that he made, the nation will applaud him.50055005Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My honourable colleague the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) obviously missed the magnificent speeches the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) gave when he visited the Dunkley electorate last week. He was simply inspirational. The broad range of community representatives who were able to spend quality time with the Prime Minister and discuss the things that were on their mind were very grateful for the generous amount of time he allocated to the people of Dunkley. I wish him well and look forward to working with him as our Prime Minister in the next parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Condolences500550055005Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I inform the House of the deaths of Gilbert William Arthur Duthie AM, a former member of this House, and Donald Newton Cameron, a former member of the other place.The much loved and much respected Gil Duthie died on 13 June 1998. Gil represented the division of Wilmot in Tasmania from 1946 to 1975. Through that period he was Opposition Whip from 13 February 1956 to 19 December 1972. Amongst his other achievements, Gil was cofounder and secretary of the Australian Parliamentary Christian Fellowship Association.Donald Cameron died on 5 June 1998. He represented the state of South Australia from 1969 to 1978.As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.Honourable members having stood in their places—10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the House.Questions Without Notice500650065006Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. If, as he said yesterday, it was important to place One Nation last in his own seat of Bennelong because `some of the policies of One Nation make people who form some minorities in our community just feel a bit uneasy and a bit unwelcome', will he take action to ensure that the coalition parties put up a common front against this threat to our social cohesion? In particular—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Brand! That's the one you should be worried about—Brand!PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Don't you worry about Brand, old son. We will save you, Wilson.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for O'Connor will refrain from debating the subject.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—In particular, what will he do to ensure that the Queensland and Western Australian divisions of the Liberal Party, as well as the National Party across Australia, follow his example in Bennelong—or isn't the Prime Minister concerned about uneasiness amongst minorities outside of Bennelong?5006Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Australian Labor Party has its processes. The Liberal Party has its processes. They are working and working very effectively. The National Party, although in coalition with the Liberal Party, is an independent party with its own organisation and its own rules. I have nothing more to say.50065006Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the steps taken in response to recent economic developments in Asia and the outcome of last weekend's meetings of the Manila group and the G7?5006Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Murray for her question. On Saturday, Australian officials participated in joint talks in Tokyo between the Manila framework group and G7. Australia played an active part in the discussions that led to the calling of the meeting and the meeting itself. The meeting provided an opportunity for senior officials from key countries to discuss the regional financial crisis. In particular, it was valuable for officials from around the world to discuss with Japan the extent of the difficulty it now faces, the impact that that has on other countries and the action that Japan is taking to resolve its problems.The meeting emphasised the vital importance to Japan, the region and the entire world that Japan restore its banking system to health, achieve domestic demand led growth and open and deregulate its markets. It also welcomed China's commitment to maintain the stability of the renmimbi and Indonesia's renewed commitment to economic reform.The Australian government welcomes statements by Japan of its commitment to restructure its financial system. This is a matter of the highest urgency. We again underline our support for those Japanese efforts to do that and stress its importance in getting the Japanese financial system stabilised, in getting the bad loans out of those financial institutions that are carrying excessive debts, and also in stimulating domestic demand. From our point of view, from the region's point of view—indeed, from the world's point of view—steps taken to reform the Japanese financial system and to stabilise the situation of the Japanese economy are of the utmost importance and have our very strong support.50065006Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Prime Minister's view that it is important to place One Nation last because `some of the policies of One Nation make people who form some minorities in our community just feel a bit uneasy and a bit unwelcome'? Will the Deputy Prime Minister take action to ensure that the National Party places One Nation last?5006Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—There are many messages arising from the Queensland state elections—some of those state, some of those federal, and I am honest enough to admit that. Perhaps one of them is that the sort of nit-picking angst and mantras here at question time—nit-picking which drives people abso lutely mad because they see the real issues being by-passed by the Labor Party—is part of those messages. If you think people are impressed by the deliberations and the style of deliberations in question time, you might like to think again.As the Prime Minister said, the National Party is a separate party to the Liberal Party. The National Party and the Federal President and I have said we will decide this issue on a state-by-state, seat-by-seat basis. Furthermore, whilst I have a clear-cut disposition, I will go about a comprehensive process of consultation; and that will be not just in places like Brisbane and elsewhere later this week, but it will be right across the nation. You will get an announcement on this matter—an honourable announcement on this matter—at the right time.50075007Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent reports on Australia's attraction as an investment location?5007Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of a recent survey compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It has found that over the past 12 months Australia has become the most attractive location for investment in the whole of Asia. And this is a tribute to the very sensible economic management that my government has brought to the economic affairs of this country.A survey published earlier this month in the Business Asia journal found that 37 per cent of respondents considered that Australia was a more attractive investment location—the highest for the entire region. This survey and what it means reveal the benefits to Australia of following a prudent fiscal policy. That policy has seen the conversion of a $10.5 billion deficit into a surplus of $2.7 billion. It has seen the delivery to the farmers, the small business men and women and the home buyers of Australia the lowest interest rates that this country has seen for 30 years.I suggest to the member for Lindsay and to all honourable members that it is a very important goal of public policy in Australia that we continue to welcome foreign investment, because foreign investment generates jobs for Australians. Without foreign investment there would be fewer Australians employed. If we become unfriendly to foreign investment, we will put Australians out of work. The fact that Australia is the most attractive investment location in the whole of Asia ought to be a source of immense pride to all Australians.50075007Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen reports that implementation of its guns policy is a condition of One Nation's political support for a minority coalition government in Queensland? Is the Prime Minister aware of the commitment given by the Queensland Nationals to review that state's gun laws in exchange for One Nation's political support? What concrete action will the Prime Minister take in the event of a minority coalition government in Queensland entering into an accommodation with the pro guns One Nation Party?5007Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have not seen all of the reports emanating out of Queensland, but my position in relation to uniform gun control laws is quite direct and quite unequivocal. Any attempt by any state under any political colour of government to water down the national gun laws will be opposed by me and my government with all the constitutional means at our disposal.50075007Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of statements made recently by key groups supporting the need for taxation reform? What is the Treasurer's response to these comments?5007Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I think all Australians of goodwill would welcome the widespread support in Australia for tax reform that is developing across the board. The Business Coalition for Tax Reform has today announced the release of television commercials which will be airing on commercial television from 5 p.m. this evening talking about the need for Australia to improve its tax system. In launching that campaign today, the Chair man of Australians for Fairer Tax, Mr John Ralph, said, `Never before has there been such a united front from small business to retailers, to manufacturers and farmers on the need for tax reform.'It is not only the business community of Australia that wants tax reform. I was particularly interested to see last Friday the release by the Australian Council of Social Services of its agenda for tax reform where ACOSS said this:If tax reform is to be genuine and acceptable, it must tackle all four elements of our tax system: personal income and assets, business income, consumption and federal-state financial relations.And listen to this from the Australian Council of Social Services:The alternatives to good and comprehensive tax reform are stark for low and middle income people and consequently for all Australians. Without it, federal and state governments will continue to cut back essential services and increase their reliance on regressive taxes and equally regressive user charges.We now have in Australia a strong movement from the business community towards tax reform; we now have a strong movement from the Australian Council of Social Services towards tax reform. We might ask ourselves, as Australia begins to grapple with the challenges that it faces: why would any decent political party stand in the way of tax reform? Why other than complete political opportunism would you as the Labor Party nail yourself to the Australian taxation system and all of its flaws?After this very positive contribution from the Australian Council of Social Services, I saw on the weekend that the Australian Labor Party came out and attacked them in the most vicious of terms. We will not always agree with the Australian Council of Social Services, but I say this for them: they had the decency to sit down and work hard on producing a better and fairer tax system for Australia. They did not take themselves out of the debate as the Australian Labor Party did.I know that the member for Kingston has in the public gallery today a group of people from a Neighbourhood Watch competition in her electorate who have come across as part of the prize to meet the Prime Minister. It will be a great opportunity for them to hear from the Prime Minister how his government wants to give Australia a much better taxation system. The Australian Labor Party stands squarely against tax reform hand in hand with One Nation. The two political parties that are on a joint ticket to oppose tax reform in Australia today are Labor and One Nation.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Both for the same reason: complete political opportunism. As the member for Werriwa said, a political party in a time warp walking hand in hand down the economic path of Hansonism. That is where Labor stands today. It stands for the outmoded wholesale sales tax; it stands for putting people on average earnings up into high marginal tax brackets; it stands against the opportunity for fairer and decent taxation in this country.Even the Australian Democrats have shown much more responsibility on this issue than Labor and One Nation. The Australian Democrats' social security spokesman, Senator Andrew Bartlett, said this of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he attacked ACOSS for supporting tax reform, `It is distressing to see Gareth going ballistic at a well respected independent body like ACOSS purely because they can't be bullied.' The bullying of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Labor has not silenced ACOSS on the need for tax reform. As for ourselves, we hardly find it distressing to see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition going ballistic. In fact, we find it quite entertaining.50085008Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and follows the answer just given by the Treasurer. Is the Prime Minister aware of recent analysis released by the Australian Council of Social Service which shows that a 10 per cent GST which is used to fund tax cuts makes married pensioners $15 a week worse off, but wealthy couples $30 a week better off? Can the Prime Minister explain to pensioners how this is fair? Can the Prime Minister also explain to pensioners why he is so determined to hit them with yet further price rises after he has already added $4,380 to the cost of a nursing home bed?5009Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—My understanding of that particular piece of analysis assumes no compensation. While I am on my feet, might I remind the member for Jagajaga of another piece of analysis which was released last week by, I think, the Institute of Chartered Accountants that demonstrated that, under the taxation system that the Labor Party supports, a family on $30,000 a year is worse off than a family on $20,000 a year. I ask you, Mr Speaker, how can it be that any political party in this country can actually support a tax system where a family—same number, same circumstances—earning $30,000 a year is actually worse off than a family on $20,000 a year? Yet, that is the Beazley-Evans taxation system where the harder you work, the more you earn, the more you lose. That is the system that the Labor Party is supporting. I think those figures speak far more eloquently than the question asked by the member for Jagajaga.50095009Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, what elements of the Australian taxation system require most urgent reform? What are the benefits of such reform?5009Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I think if I had to name the elements of the Australian taxation system which require reform the most, I would pick up from where the Prime Minister was just speaking. Why would you support a system—like Labor does—where the average person, a person on 1½ times average earnings, pays 47 per cent in income tax? Why would you support a system—as Labor does—whereby people that are just getting past average earnings, maybe doing a bit of overtime, have to pay $1 in $2 in tax?VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—It is not $1 in $2, and you know it. Stop telling lies.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Why would you support a system where people in the $20,000 to $30,000 wage range, not only have tax imposed on them, but have social security taken away and are paying 80 per cent and 90 per cent in taking away income tax and social security benefits?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Tax credits! Tax credits!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I hear the Labor Party now interjecting and saying, `Oh, no, no, no, we are going to deal with all of that! We are going to deal with that with an income tax credit.' Yes—just like you dealt with it in 1983, and 1984, and 1985, and 1986, and 1987, and 1988. You had 13 years and you did nothing. We now have a Labor opposition whose sole reason to get back into government is to stop change. That is its sole reason. The one policy that the Beazley opposition has come up with—think about this—is a policy for its next term in opposition: to oppose indirect tax reform. That is the only policy that it has actually put down in relation to tax.Why would you support a system like that? Why does Labor support a system of indirect tax where you tax soft toys at 22 per cent but do not tax antique mirrors? Why does Labor support that kind of tax system? Why does Labor support a tax system where you start taxing biscuits but you will not tax caviar? Why does Labor support a system where you put a 22 per cent tax on a car but do not tax an aeroplane?The Labor Party presided over 13 years of absolute tax unfairness, and where it stands now is not on a principle. Labor now stands precisely where One Nation stands, on the same basis of populism, because they will not face up to the big issues that are confronting this country. This is an opposition without any spine or principle; an opposition which cannot deal with any of the big political issues; and an opposition which has the most contradictory position on tax possibly imaginable.We want to give a better deal for wage and salary earners. We want to cut top marginal tax rates, give a better go to average wage and salary earners, get a better interplay between wage and salary and social security, harmonise out all of those irregularities in relation to indirect tax, and give families the kind of justice they deserve with a new tax system and a better tax system.50105010Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall telling ABC radio 2NC listeners on 11 December 1995:One of the worst things about politics in Australia is that the public doesn't believe what its political leaders say.The woman interviewing him asked about the GST. He replied:Mickey, it is not on the agenda, full stop.. . . . . . . . .Just not there. Vamoose. Kaput.. . . . . . . . .I say to the people of Australia, there will be no GST . . . . . . . . . . . .you can ask me again in two years time and you will find that I've kept my word on that.Prime Minister, why should the Australian community believe now that you will ever keep your word on anything?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent. The Prime Minister will wait—5010Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the question is that I had, two years after that interview was given. Everyone knows that GST has not been introduced in the first term that we have been in government. Everyone knows that we are honest enough—unlike the Labor Party—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—to go to the Australian public at the next election with a tax reform program; unlike the Labor Party who promised no GST, but when they got back in power in 1993 introduced one without having the courage to face the electorate before that change of policy. There is a vast difference in the situation and the Australian public well knows it.50105010Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Can the minister inform the House how anomalies in the current taxation system impact on the transport sector?5010Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for his question. As the honourable member would know, some of the indirect taxes that are applied to the transport sector have a severe impact, particularly on some of the operators in his electorate, and I instance Ron Finemores Transport in the city of Wagga Wagga, which the honourable member represents.A couple of examples where anomalies in the taxation system do dramatically impact on the transport sector should be noted. The first one is the diesel fuel excise. Members would recall that in 1983 when the Labor Party came to office diesel fuel excise was 7c a litre. In 1996, after 13 years of Labor, the diesel fuel excise was 36c a litre. Remember those infamous promises in the middle of that in 1993 when they were not going to increase any of those taxes and in fact they did? We have maintained that we would not increase those taxes since we have been in office, and we have not. But that is just one anomaly. One of the other anomalies in the aviation area—this is part of the crazy system that the Labor Party wants to protect and do not want anybody to change—is that powered aircraft are exempt from the wholesale sales tax. However, powered gliders are taxed at 22 per cent. Non-motorised gliders are also taxed at 22 per cent. However, hot-air balloons are exempt. What is the difference between an ultralight and a powered glider? What is the difference between a glider and a hot-air balloon?DT4CREANMr Crean—The hot air balloons are all over there.SU5Mr VAILE—There are a few hot-air balloons opposite, Mr Speaker.The other point I would like to make is that we have shown a great deal of faith with the Australian public in terms of taxation, because, in fact, in the last budget, we abolished a tax. We abolished the avgas tax in the last budget, a tax that the Labor Party introduced and kept putting up, a tax that the Labor Party, in the dying days of their government, wanted to increase again. We stopped them and now we have abolished that avgas tax. In fact, a number of people from around Australia have appreciated the fact that we have abolished that avgas tax so much that they have written to me acknowledging that. I have heard from Norman Brown from North Queensland and Loxton Engineering in South Australia.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Dick Smith!SU5Mr VAILE—No, there is not one here from Dick Smith. I have also heard from Dr James Auld in Inverell in New South Wales, Ron Knapp of Western Australia and a Fred Fahey from the Southern Highlands, no relation to the finance minister. These people have taken the time to write to our government thanking us for the genuineness of the way we have implemented policy.We have eliminated a tax that the Labor Party put into place and the Labor Party increased. The Labor Party now want to protect the taxation system. They want to keep the taxation system that has been proven day in and day out to be an impost, particularly on our export sector. I know that the Leader of the Opposition in one of his speeches noted that fuel excise was an impost on the export sector.50115011Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Is the Treasurer aware of claims that there is anecdotal evidence that more Australians are investing in managed funds than they were a year ago and that 19 per cent of those investing in managed funds have done so because they believe them to be a safe, secure and low risk investment option? Why then is the government committed to eliminating the existing two-tiered managed fund structure when the leading rating agency, Standard and Poors, has said that this structure provides better investment protection than the proposed single responsible entity?5011Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I will not dispute the first part of the question. I will rely on the anecdotal evidence that the member for Curtin refers to. At the beginning of the 1990s there was difficulty in respect of Australia's managed funds. There were a number that suffered from liquidity problems and there were a number of investors that got hurt. The Companies and Securities Advisory Committee and the Law Reform Council did a joint report to look at it and said one of the reasons the two entity structure was not working was that there was nobody who carried single legal liability.In relation to the dual responsibility, there was overlap. There were different duties. It was not clear who was totally responsible to the investor. Every time there was litigation, there were cross-actions between the two parties concerned. The then Labor government produced a bill for a single responsible entity. Subsequent to that, we had a financial system inquiry. The financial system inquiry was not requested by me, but it did look at this issue. It came to the same conclusion—that is, that there should be a single responsible entity. The matter has been referred to a committee in the Senate and the Senate has come to the same conclusion. In addition to this, after discussions with the Australian Securities Commission, the government decided to act in accordance with the recommendations of, by now, the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee, the Law Reform Commission, the financial system inquiry, a Senate committee and the Australian Securities Commission. What that requires is that there be a single responsible entity who takes the totality of the legal liability for a scheme to an individual investor. That person can, if they wish to, by contract, set up a situation where there is another party to hold assets. Indeed, under ASC requirements, the ASC will insist that there not be the opportunity for related parties, except with protections, to both hold assets in its name and to manage the funds. The ASC has produced extensive notes in relation to this. Given the fact that you have had strong findings by independent bodies, given the fact that you had a problem which commenced all of those inquiries and given the fact that you now have strong regulatory regimes set by the Australian Securities Commission, this government believes that these will be good investments with proper safeguards. What is more, there will be more efficiency and the prospects of returns for investors will be better. I understand that, in relation to the industry, those who manage funds will be happier with those situations and those trustee companies, which obviously perform the role of trustees for funds, will be less happy. I believe that the in-built safeguards that the government has put in place will protect investors whilst dealing with the problems which gave rise to this whole issue and bring to a finality this issue which has been going on now for seven or eight years.50125012Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Can the minister outline to the House what action the government is taking to make it easier for small business to run their particular businesses?5012Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Richmond for his question. We had a very busy week for small business last week in implementing and announcing various policy initiatives. One was the matrix of employee definitions and employer responsibilities. This policy is called Unravelling the Threads. I refer it to members because, if you are running a small business, to know when a person is an employee as opposed to dealing with a subbie is the bane of the life of many people in small business. This was a recommendation to us. I know it is not a headline issue and that the opposition is obviously not interested, but I tell you what: this is a very practical initiative for the benefit of small business.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—What about the waterfront?WI4Mr REITH—I will say a bit more about that when I am asked a question later. It is on the Internet, we have booklets and the like for people, and I do strongly recommend it to all those members who deal with their constituencies on small business issues. My colleague the parliamentary secretary, Mr Cadman, last week released an information kit on alternative dispute resolution. This is also aimed at providing a benefit to the small business community. Like the first one, it will save them red tape and costs. It is a very useful initiative.Lastly, we have the franchise code—a big measure I launched last week. This of course comes out of the Reid committee recommendations and is one of the significant policy initiatives of this government. Labor had a voluntary scheme; it did not work. We have come in, we have put a proper scheme in place and we have underpinned it with the Trade Practices Act reforms. This is going to be a major boost to a $52 billion industry. This government made a lot of commitments to small business. We give it very high priority; we have put it in cabinet and in the last week we have delivered not once, not twice, but on three important occasions for the benefit of small business.50125012Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall saying yesterday that there will be no more closures of post offices or mail centres in rural Australia? Why should Australians living in rural and regional areas believe this promise when you said before the last election that you would never ever introduce a GST, that it was `vamoose' and `kaput'? Given that the National Competition Council report on post services will result in the closure of many post offices and mail centres, will you now ditch this report? If not, why should anyone believe you when you say that their services are safe?5012Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—What I said yesterday was that our response to the report would not lead to closures of post offices or mail centres in the bush. That response will fully honour our election commitments. I take the opportunity afforded to me by the member for Hotham to repeat those commitments, and I repeat them for the benefit of people not only in rural and regional Australia but throughout the Australian community: we intend to maintain Australia Post in full public ownership, and we intend to maintain Post's obligation to provide all Australians with a standard letter service at a uniform rate. I remind the parliament that we have already ensured two deliveries per week where people were previously receiving one per week and requested an additional service. Our response to the NCC report will benefit, not harm, the bush. Whilst Post's presence in the bush will not be harmed by our response, the Labor Party wants to deny to farmers and small businesses in rural and regional Australia the benefits of better services and lower prices. The answer that I gave yesterday I repeat, and I stand by it.50135013Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the role that Australia continues to play in helping to restore peace and stability in Cambodia? Can the minister also advise the House of the outcomes of the recent `Friends of Cambodia' meeting in Bangkok?5013Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Since July of last year, the government has been playing a role in trying to assist with the restoration of proper democratic processes in Cambodia. Part of that process was the effort we made with others to establish what is known as the `Friends of Cambodia' group. It met with the ASEAN Troika on 20 June—that is, on Saturday—and we discussed the situation in Cambodia in the lead-up to the elections on 26 July. It was agreed that there had been some positive achievements. For example, the registration of voters has moved ahead relatively successfully, but problems remain—problems in terms of the opposition's access to the electronic media and the right to unhindered assembly, and there are still some threats of intimidation. At this stage there is also a lack of voter education in preparation for the election.The `Friends of Cambodia' made it perfectly clear, as did the ASEAN Troika, that we still want to see free, fair and credible elections. It is our judgment that that is possible, but that will only be achieved if the sorts of concerns I have mentioned have been fully addressed by the time the election occurs. Over and above that, let me say that it is very important that there is in Cambodia an independent investigation into politically motivated killings. We hope that that investigation will now proceed. But, overall, the `Friends of Cambodia' group has helped to promote both that investigation and free, fair and credible elections in Cambodia.50135013Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does he support the application of a GST to telephone services, including all call charges? Given that the telephone is so crucial a lifeline for so many home-bound and pensioner Australians, and given that the average telephone bills of rural and regional Australians are significantly higher than for Australians living in capital cities, how can you justify this additional slug on groups of Australians who are already doing it harder than many others?5013Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I support a reform of the Australian taxation system that will make it fairer. I support reform of the Australian taxation system that will help families. The Liberal and National parties, unlike the Australian Labor Party and One Nation, are committed to a taxation system that will take this country into the 21st century, give it a competitive edge and, in particular, reform the tax system to provide real benefits for rural Australians.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the member for Bradfield, members of the opposition will remain silent so that the whole House can hear the honourable member.50135013Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can the minister inform the House of any developments in relation to general practice in Australia? What action is the government taking to support general medical practice?5013Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest. There are some good things happening in general practice. A number of them were announced in the budget, and they take place starting from next week. There are three initiatives. The first is rural work force agencies, which will help coordinate rural retention and rural recruitment, which has been an ongoing problem for country people. The second is a program of micro-economic reform, which I think holds very big prospects for general practice.In Australia the average size of general practice is just over two GPs. This compares with somewhere like the UK where the average size is around five general practitioners. When you have larger numbers of general practitioners, people can specialise; they can get a bit of time off; they can have ongoing education; and the practice itself can provide comprehensive 24 hour a day care. So the money we are putting in for micro-economic reform, I think, will have a very great effect on general practice in the years to come. Thirdly, we are supporting information technology in general practice, an area of very great need. Doctors have been slow to take up information technology, yet it holds very great prospect for the public.Other initiatives in response to the honourable member's questions are that from 1 November this year general practitioners will be getting a full indexation of the MBS rebate and a further increase from 1 March next year in recognition that the rebate has been held back for some five to six years. Further, we are changing the general practice strategy in response to general practice strategy review. There has been a very large component of that called the better practice program. It seems to have done anything but promote better practice. So from 1 July we are changing it to the practice incentives program. It will be much clearer and easier for general practitioners to understand and will reward specific achievable outcomes such as a high rate of immunisation amongst the children that they see.Finally, we are changing the method of remuneration of general practice trainees in response to a recommendation and review into general practice education. This will mean that general practitioners who are in training can actually focus on educational outcomes and will not be required to see patients to generate their income. All in all, I believe that these changes will underpin a very positive future for general practice, which is the cornerstone of health care in Australia.50145014Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. I draw your attention to the works of the late B.A. Santamaria, both in his column in the Australian and in his own publication News Weekly where he often referred to the creation of what he called a people's bank able to make loans at two per cent. Does this make Bob Santamaria, in your mind, an agent for the League of Rights, or does it simply demonstrate that neither you nor the Prime Minister understand fractional reserve banking?5014Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Obviously, over the years, I have had a number of meetings with Mr Santamaria. I agreed with him on some things and I disagreed with him profoundly on others. I certainly agreed with him about the need to fight communism in the trade unions and the Australian Labor Party, which he did a very good job of. I thoroughly disagreed with Mr Santamaria on the need for compulsory unionism. I can remember arguing that with him and his organisation.I must say that I have never taken my economic guidance from Mr Santamaria. I do not want to speak ill of anybody who is obviously a great Australian, but, starting from the National Rural Catholic Action Movement back, I do not think many of his economic ventures were a success, including setting up cooperatives and communes in rural Victoria back in the 1940s. I think you would agree with me. If you want to know whether the League of Rights has written One Nation's economic policies—CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—I don't. Point of order!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Well, you don't because you think you have a monopoly on the League of Rights economic policy.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—My point of order goes to relevance. It is quite clear that I mentioned nothing about One Nation. I want to know whether in the mind of the Treasurer B.A. Santamaria is influenced by the League of Rights. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Don't restate the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If you want evidence of that proposition, you need go no further than Eric Butler, who, as I recall, got on AM and said that, yes, he had influenced the economic policy of One Nation but then went on to say that he would not agree with everything One Nation did because it had people who were too extreme for him in it. I would have thought if Mr Eric Butler of the League of Rights believes that there are elements of One Nation that are too extreme for him he ought to know. Mr Eric Butler can pick an extremist when he sees one, and he has.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I refer again to relevance. I am asking about the relationship between the League of Rights and B.A. Santamaria. I do not really want to know about anything else.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his answer. The Treasurer is relevant.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If I were giving advice in relation to economic policy, I would say that the economic prescriptions of the League of Rights are not good for Australia; nor are the economic prescriptions which say we can solve our problems by printing money; nor are the economic prescriptions that say that unproven theories which have never been adopted by any other country, with the possible exception of Latin America in its debt crisis in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s, should be followed by One Nation, the League of Rights or by any other political party.50155015Halverson, Robert, MPMr HALVERSON3H4CaseyLP10—My question is to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs. What action has the government taken in relation to the dangerous practice of mixing duty free fuels with petrol and diesel?5015Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I thank the member for Casey for the question. The government has legislated to stop the dangerous and potentially hazardous practice of substituting or blending concessional fuels with diesel and petrol for use in cars and trucks. The legislation came into effect on 31 January this year. Now these concessional fuels have a chemical marker placed in them that can be detected in a simple test. I am delighted to be able to report to the House that these measures have proved to be very successful.When the government introduced these measures we had in mind that we may save about $25 million in revenue. Early indications are that we are saving around $10 million a month already from this measure. Whilst it may take some time to know whether those figures actually continue, it is clear that the practice of substitution has been more widespread than was previously thought.This not only has revenue implications, but also has safety implications because many of these excise free fuels have lower flashpoints and so can cause damage to engines and even can be hazardous to human life. So it is very important that this practice be stamped out. The government's action is indeed proving to be successful. In 14 tests conducted in Victoria, five have produced positive results. In New South Wales, out of 20 tests six have proved positive. In total, $35 million worth of potential fuel fraud is under investigation. This legislation is a clear demonstration yet again that this government is tough on tax cheats, but it is also concerned about the safety and security of consumers.50155015McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, have you seen the reports of the view expressed by a former P&C stevedore that Australian workplace agreements `are not worth the paper they are printed on'? Isn't this person right? Doesn't the evidence support him, given that the stevedores employed under collective agreements remain in secure employment on the wharves while all the stevedores who were employed under AWAs have now lost their jobs? Given the hard lessons you, above all other Australians, should have learned on the wharves, shouldn't you now come clean with working Australians and tell them—confirm this gentleman's view—that AWAs are not worth the paper they are printed on?5015Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The honourable member seems to have little understanding of the way in which Australia's workplace relations systems operate. The fact of the matter is that, whether you have a certified agreement under 170LK, whether you have a certified agreement with a union, whether you have a certified agreement directly with employees, whether you have an Australian workplace agreement collectively or individually, or whether you have an informal agreement, all of those forms of agreement making simply provide people with choices as to the manner in which they cement the terms and conditions upon which they have been employed. That is all that it does.Your question betrays the underlying policy position that you have, and that is that you intend to abolish Australian workplace agreements. You publicly say that this is a good thing, even though 18,000 of them have so far been approved—and the number has been growing exponentially—and even though 18,000 of those people in literally hundreds of businesses find those arrangements convenient for their own particular arrangements. This is a classic glimpse into the Labor Party's attitude to workplace relations. Because the unions have told you that the unions are opposed to individuals having their own agreements, you follow the dictates of the trade union movement and you are advocating the most regressive industrial relations policy to be unveiled by a major political party in this country. All Australians ought to be aware that it is not just AWAs you intend to abolish but, at the dictates of the trade union movement, you will also abolish the secondary boycott bans in the Trade Practices Act. Why is it, when you look at the waterfront dispute, you have people like Bob Brown telling you how to run your industrial relations policy. What was one of the incredible aspects of the recent dispute on the Australian waterfront? One of the most incredible aspects of it was that at no stage did we have a nationwide stoppage. Why was that? Because of the effectiveness of the Australian Workplace Relations Act and the ban on secondary boycotts. AWAs are a great idea, and there are thousands of individuals enjoying them. The only reason you would abolish them is because you have been told to by the trade union movement.50165016Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, can you inform the House of the state of the negotiations to reform the Australian waterfront? Will this dispute be resolved soon?5016Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I can advise the House that there have been very extensive discussions and negotiations with respect to the waterfront dispute. We expect that the union is likely to be in a position with Patrick's tomorrow to sign some form of agreement, generally as a framework agreement in settlement of the dispute but with further documentation to follow.In a nutshell, if matters continue on the basis which has been discussed, we would expect to see something like half the current work force take a redundancy package. The manning levels under the agreement have been based on the government's productivity target rate of 25 crane lifts an hour.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah!WI4Mr REITH—It is specified in the agreement, Simon. You ought to read it; it is on the Internet. That would see an end to the overmanning on the Australian waterfront which has been the basis of much of the problem and the lack of productivity.Secondly, the intention of the parties would be to sign industrial agreements. These industrial agreements would be signed under the government's Workplace Relations Act. Under the Workplace Relations Act, once you sign an agreement you give up the right to take industrial action during the currency of that agreement. That is a significant change in itself because a lack of reliability on the Australian waterfront has come about because these guys have always been taking industrial action. So, firstly, you get a cut in the overmanning—a reduction in the work force by about half; secondly, with the entering into of industrial agreements, you will bring into full play the operations of the Workplace Relations Act limiting industrial action. Thirdly, in this—DT4CREANMr Crean—What about the contractors?WI4Mr REITH—Yes, I will say something about contractors. I have often given this House an example of the rorts on the Australian waterfront. One of the rorts on the Australian waterfront has been the use of double-headers—where people get paid double time and a half. Under the agreement, double-headers will be abolished.The fourth element, just to give members a sense of the changes and the extent of them, is the agreement to contract out maintenance. I mention this one because members will remember that the MUA was taking industrial action at one stage to prevent P&O in Port Botany from replacing second-hand diesel engines with new and more reliable capital equipment. The contracting out provisions and the performance requirements under contracting out will of course also abolish yet another rort—in particular, that one which has been a problem for a long time. So we will see the work force reduced by roughly half, we will see contracting out and we will see the adoption of the government's productivity targets as just some of the elements in what will be the biggest and most significant set of changes on the Australian waterfront in living memory.Just to conclude, given that I have had the interjection, I contrast that with the WIRA process when Labor was in office. The day after Labor announced WIRA—remembering our 25 crane rate is actually built into the manning levels—Tas Bull, who was running the unions, said, `We certainly haven't been asked to give any guarantees as to productivity improvements. That would be impossible for the work force to provide.' You got nothing out of WIRA. You forked out $170 million worth of taxpayers' money and you left us to clean up your mess.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Auditor-General's Reports501710000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 48 for 1997-98 entitledPerformance audit—Data management in the APS .Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 48 of 1997-98; and(2) the report be printed.501710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:501748R36 MG4Albanese Anthony MP; Lee Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully bring to your attention their concern about the privatisation of the NSW Adult Migrant English Service which they believe will be to the detriment of refugees and migrants who have used this service of acknowledged high quality for 50 years.Your petitioners therefore request that the House urgently review the decision with a view to ensuring that the Service is retained and that the combine experience of the staff and the resources continue to be available to serve the needs of refugees and migrants in New South Wales.Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese(from 21 citizens)Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 27 citizens)5017758T4Ferguson Laurie MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:This petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth our concern about the privatisation of the NSW Adult Migrant Education Service which they believe will be to the detriment of refugees and migrants who have traditionally used this service for over 50 years.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House urgently review the decision with a view to ensuring that the Service is reactivated and that the combined experience of the staff resources continues to be available to serve the needs of refugees and migrants in New South Wales.Mr Laurie Ferguson8T4Mr Laurie Ferguson(from 75 citizens)5017282HH4 PG6Jenkins Harry MP; Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows that: The Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable. Fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet extra costs. The Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs. The Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk.Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament: make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 15 citizens)Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 267 citizens)50181413XU5 KK6Lieberman Lou MP; McDougall Graeme MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Sexuality Discrimination Bill (SBD) which is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the near future. In particular, the petitioners wish to alert the House to concerns that this legislation will: Whilst granting special rights to homosexuals, take away significant rights from the majority of Australians. Force citizens to employ/tolerate homosexuals and their activities—where this is contrary to their beliefs. Further validate homosexual partnerships and pave the way for same-sex marriage and adoption rights. Burden proof on employers, churches, schools, etc, as to why they should be exempt from this legislation. Not exempt groups receiving government funding and thus force compliance under threat of loss of funds. Override States' rights, invalidate existing laws and put Australia at the mercy of international treaties. Curtail freedom of speech in churches when proclaiming scriptural truth on issue of family, sexuality, etc.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House reject the Sexuality Discrimination Bill in its entirety and thereby protect the status and rights of the vast majority of Australians. Mr LiebermanXU5Mr Lieberman(from 28 citizens)Mr McDougallKK6Mr McDougall(from 1,385 citizens)5018115R36Albanese Anthony MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often resulting in the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care.Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which provides no additional benefit to the residents and is nothing more than a disguised Government tax.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese(from 115 citizens)501889R36Albanese Anthony MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that the dwellings located in William Street, Marrickville and certain dwellings in Bright Street, Marrickville have been deemed ineligible for noise insulation under the Sydney Aircraft Noise Insulation Program (SANIP).As it is evident that residents within these ineligible dwellings suffer at least as much aircraft noise as those in nearby eligible dwellings that have received insulation, your petitioners hereby call upon Members of Parliament to approve the noise insulation of the above-said uninsulated residences as soon as possible.Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese(from 89 citizens)501875QE4Beddall David MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's cuts to higher education and the negative effect on staff and students at higher education institutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that Higher Educa tion Funding is adequate and to return it to Pre-1996 levels.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BeddallQE4Mr Beddall(from 75 citizens)50191556AH4Hicks Noel MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House support of the undersigned for the establishment of radiotherapy services at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will commend the establishment of radiotherapy services at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga to treat cancer patients residing in the southwest region of N.S.W. and northeastern Victoria.The House is advised that the Minister for Health Dr Andrew Refshauge M.P. has given `in principle' support to the proposed co-located `sister' clinics at Wagga Wagga and Albury/Wodonga.We, therefore, respectfully request the House to call on the Federal Minister for Health Dr Michael Wooldridge M.P. to urgently approve the provision of these vital radiotherapy services for country cancer patients who are now disadvantaged by being forced to attend metropolitan based services for long periods of treatment.Mr HicksAH4Mr Hicks(from 1,556 citizens)50193044EK6Jeanes Susan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament.The petition of certain electors from the State of South Australia draws the attention of the House to the following.The desire of the people of South Australia to have legislation drawn and brought before the House to restrict the spending of all past and future Ex-Prime Ministers to no more than $1000-00 per week of taxpayers money on their privileges.Your petitioners therefore pray that the HouseIntroduce legislation to reduce the expenditure of past Prime Ministers to $1000-00 per week.Ms JeanesEK6Ms Jeanes(from 3,044 citizens)501915HH4Jenkins Harry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House community anger over the backward stance of the current Federal Government on the environment. The decision to mine uranium at Jabiluka is a symbol of this government's preference for `development at any cost', and the failure of the government to protect the Kakadu World Heritage Area has destroyed Australia's international reputation as a leader in environmental protection.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call on the Government to reverse its decision in light of further environmental assessments that confirms the potential of the mine to impact on the wilderness and world heritage values of Kakadu National Park.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 15 citizens)501933351KH4Jones Barry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of the citizens of Werribee and other interested persons:draws to the attention of the House the proposal by CSR Ltd to construct and operate a Prescribed Waste Landfill facility at Wests Road, Werribee immediately adjacent to the Australian Ramsar listed wetlands site no. 18. The facility if constructed would pose a real environmental threat to the Ramsar wetlands and give a message to the international community that we are willing to jeopardise the future of Ramsar sites by allowing the proposed Waste management facility to go ahead.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House abide by its obligations as a signatory to the Ramsar Convention and maintain the ecological character of the sites in perpetuity by using its statutory power to stop this development.Mr Barry JonesKH4Mr Barry Jones(from 33,351 citizens)501939XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembledThe Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia points out to the House:That we, the undersigned, object to the mining of uranium at Jabiluka, in World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. Uranium mining and nuclear energy are damaging to the environment for hundreds of thousands of years, and we believe that these industries are unethical and not in the national interest, nor in the interest of the global community.The Jabiluka site is being developed against the wishes of the Mirrar people, the traditional owners of the land. We support them in their opposition to the Jabiluka Mine. Our petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives to call on the Federal Government to:Act responsibly. Stop Jabiluka Uranium Mine. Save Kakadu.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 39 citizens)502028HT4McLachlan Ian MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that we strongly object to the Government signing the treaty known as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.The MAI document requires far more discussion and understanding by the citizens that has been allowed for and we request that you advise the Government that it is OUR WILL that no measures be taken to implement the Multilateral Agreement on Investment without referendum of the citizens of Australia, and that no action is taken to give effect to this treaty by means of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act section 47(1).Your petitioners therefore request the House to remove the Multilateral Agreement on Investment from further passage in the House until such a referendum has been taken.Mr McLachlanHT4Mr McLachlan(from 28 citizens)502011BI4Miles Chris MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:that we consider illicit drugs to be one of the biggest social problems confronting young people and families;that many families are suffering extreme hurt and pain because of the drug trade;that many young people are not reaching their full potential due to drug addiction;we commend the Federal Government for its $87.5 million National Illicit Drug Strategy;Your petitioners therefore request the House to:continue to do everything possible to combat illicit drug use and trafficking in Australia.Mr MilesBI4Mr Miles(from 11 citizens)50201630MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House their concern at the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek and give notice that we are totally opposed to the construction of the Badgerys Creek Airport or any other airport in the Sydney Basin, as we believe that these airports would compromise our safety health and financial security as well as add to the already high levels of pollution (noise, air, water and soil) and in the area.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take such action as will enable their concerns to be recognised and the said airports not be built in the Sydney Basin.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 1,630 citizens)5020134ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played (if any) by any of the senior members of the coalition government.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 134 citizens)502047ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain members of the Australian community affirms our commitment to a culturally diverse Australian society which is unified by a common desire to see all Australians, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age or ability treated with respect and dignity.We recognise the contribution that all Australians have made to the cultural, social and economic development of Australia, and reject the views expressed by Pauline Hanson as divisive and not based on fact.In recognition of the need to debate these issues honestly and publicly, we request the House to call upon the Federal Government to mount a high profile anti-racism campaign (for which funds were provided in the 1996-97 budget) and fulfil its obligations to build and maintain a harmonious and united Australia. Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 47 citizens)502145ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes place upon those people who require prescription medicines.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against those with the greatest incapacity to pay for prescription medicines.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 45 citizens)502139ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain citizens notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes of policy on nursing homes—particularly the attempt to impose user charges on those needing nursing home care—whether these charges be in the form of upfront fees, periodic payments or extra daily fees. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need alone.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 39 citizens)502130ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student access to university education.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 30 citizens)50217ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of the people of Australia shows: Our opposition to the use of Genetic Engineering of any form of life, on environment, moral and social grounds. Further, we wish to show our opposition to any form of patenting of life. We request that the Parliament introduce laws to end the genetic engineering industry and research into genetic engineering. We also request that the Parliament repeal all legislation enabling the patenting of life forms and withdraw from any international conventions committing Australia to implementing patenting laws.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, do pray.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from seven citizens)50215ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns regarding the issue of the proposed new Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take immediate steps to reject the current form of the legislation which will:1. Bring into being a Therapeutic Goods Act that will severely curtail competition by restricting permissible statements in advertising that far exceed the restrictions imposed on any other sector of private enterprise.2. Set up a system by which even unwitting offenders against the Advertising Code will have no legal recourse and can be effectively prevented from trading.3. Limit the right of citizens to make fully informed choices in selecting health care options from the range of traditional and alternative therapies available.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from five citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business5021502114:58:005021Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I 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.When David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the state of Israel in 1948, few international observers expected this union to survive the decade. Israel's 50th anniversary of statehood is therefore much more than the commemoration of a milestone; it is the celebration of how a national vision can triumph over inherent adversity. Israel's accomplishments are a study in stoicism, an inspiring example of how a national vision and brave leadership will conquer adversity. As someone who has had the privilege of visiting Israel on two occasions, I witnessed first hand this inflexible commitment and devotion to a national vision.I recall a recent incident which illustrates this very point. I was in a party of observers which travelled to the Chativa army base at Mount Hermon under the escort of Captain Joel Goldman. Our host at the base was an army major, a man whose optimism and energy seemed to flourish in the face of adversity. The afternoon progressed and the conversation gradually became more informal. Captain Goldman began to tell the story of how, as a young man during his national service, he was involved in the forcible removal of Jewish settlers when the Sinai was returned to Egypt. He spoke at length about how he and other army personnel had dragged settlers from their air raid shelters. Reluctantly, he described in elaborate detail the panicked attempts of settlers to protect their homes by scrambling onto their roofs as the army bulldozers took aim before reducing their homes to rubble.When he finished telling his story, the army base major nodded his head and said that he had been one of the settlers who had been removed in that fashion from his home in the Sinai. There was no attempt by either man to trivialise the event, but the expected and, in the circumstances, understandable tension and rancour between the men never materialised. Instead there was a tacit acknowledgment that their vision sustains the pursuit of peace and that adversity was only a temporary bedfellow.The gravity of the challenge was apparent when I visited Na'ama on the Jordanian border and Gush Etzion, where a Jewish settler had recently been shot dead by Palestinians. In an almost reflex response, settlers destroyed the water supply to a neighbouring Palestinian village. These destructive actions and the consequent disproportionate responses are a potent barrier to peace and yet the people of Israel remain unconditionally committed to their dream of a sanctuary for their people to attain their full potential, be it in the arts, academia, science, technology or religion.Although both our lands are rich with history, Australia and Israel are infant nations. We are both great participators in democracy. We share the same values, seek the same goals and are stirred by the great events of the day. Oppression, savagery and injustice prick our national consciousness and stir our emotions. Israel's ability to focus on a national vision and overcome adversity is a feature that Australia should feel compelled to embrace.Sometimes peace in the Middle East seems an impossible task, but we are encouraged by events like the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the end of apartheid in South Africa to believe that nothing is beyond our capacity. These events have been inspired by a universal urgency for peace in the second half of the century in the aftermath of World War II.There is good reason and sufficient incentive to hope that peace can and will be achieved in the Middle East. Since the historic signing of the Declaration of Principles between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in September 1993, there has been consistent but cautious progress towards peace and autonomy in the region. The Middle East entered a new epoch, consolidating on the peaceful foundations painstakingly laid by present and previous leaders. More recently the urgency for the continuation of the peace process has been accelerated by the events of the Gulf War. The state of Israel has seen the contrasting faces of courage and the cowardice of terrorism but through brave leadership and a belief in a vision it is confronting obstacles to real peace and has been a lesson in faith to the international community. I thank the member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), who will second this motion before the House today in a bipartisan way, and the members for Grayndler (Mr Albanese), Kooyong (Mr Georgiou) and Riverina (Mr Hicks), who will follow me in the debate on this motion. I thank the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?15:04:005023Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—I second the motion. Many Australians will want to commend this motion on the occasion of the celebration of the state of Israel and its people—their achievements, their survival and their 50 years of statehood. On the historic occasion of the United Nations vote, Australia was the first vote to be cast for the creation of the state of Israel. As the vote proceeded, the Zionists' dream became a reality. The Jewish people, the survivors of the Holocaust, were coming home.Having survived interventionist wars by its Arab neighbours and continuing acts of terrorism at home and abroad, the state of Israel has survived due to the strength and durability of its people and the support of Jewish communities in the diaspora. It is a tragedy for all the people of the Middle East that, after 50 years, the tensions, the loss of life and the acts of terror continue. Despite countless resolutions of the United Nations, peace in the Middle East continues to be as elusive as ever.Peace in the Middle East continues to be elusive. Australia's policy on the Arab-Israeli confrontation is officially one of even-handedness. For Israel, it has to be pointed out, the United Nations General Assembly is not and has never been an equal playing field. Since its admission, Israel cannot join any of the regional groupings which are essential in the nomination to important UN bodies. All political structures have these sorts of groupings. If you are outside any of them, your capacity to get elected to bodies which are very important in the processes that the United Nations deals with is very limited indeed. That has been a continuing problem for the state of Israel.Important committees or positions within the United Nations are effectively denied to them. Israel is continually required, therefore, by United Nations resolutions which emerge from these committees to take security risks and to make sacrifices which are not equally borne by its Arab neighbours. There comes a time when countries like Australia have to point out the result of this. As long as that process continues, I fear that peace will be quite elusive in the Middle East.The United States of America, by virtue of its economic strength and its capacity, plays a major role in the determination of the peace process. It has recently suggested to the state of Israel that perhaps peace could be obtained by Israel surrendering up to 13 per cent of its land. That might be all very well for America. If America wants to give up Hawaii, that is a matter for America. But I do not believe that it is an effective contribution for a nation with all the strength and power, and given the support that it has given to Israel on many occasions, to simply say that the simple solution is that one side will give up 13 per cent of its land, without any consideration of the implications of that and against a background where, even if that were to occur, there can be no guarantee of peace.It is not an even-handed situation in the Middle East; it never has been. Since the state of Israel was created, there have been those in many dictatorial regimes who are pledged to its destruction. Australia has played an important role in the United Nations in trying to take an even-handed position, but even there we are subject to pressures. This is an occasion for the people of Australia to say to the people of Israel, `Congratulations on your achievement. We commend your sacrifices. We commend your contribution to the world at large. May the state of Israel long continue to exist and provide a home and a base for Jewish people around the world.'15:09:005023Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to support the motion put forward by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Pyne) calling on the strengthening of the friendship between the people of Australia and the people of Israel. In his motion, the member for Sturt also commends the achievements of the state of Israel during the past 50 years. He also supports Israel's peace agreement with its neighbours and encourages the striving for full peace within and between the nations of the Middle East.At the outset, let me say that I am an ardent admirer of the people of Israel and what they have achieved since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 and their endeavours leading to the establishment of their state. That does not mean that I always agree with their actions or that I do not have respect and sympathy for their neighbours, the Palestinians, and other Arab states in the region. One has to be sensitive when speaking about the Israeli nation, Zionism, the Diaspora Jewry and so on to someone who is not a Jew or an Israeli because of the complex nature of the subject.I have to admit that, although I have visited Israel, my knowledge of the nation and its history comes from reading at length a number of publications and novels on the history of the Jewish people over the centuries, including the Old Testament of the Bible. I know of the tenacity, courage and faith of those people who today in varying degrees look to Israel for their source. Because of the vagaries of politics and the self-interest of nations that in modern history have dominated world affairs, the creation of the state of Israel, in my opinion, has to be seen as a miracle, resulting as it did against all the odds. Since that time, upon the announcement of its establishment, and despite the immediate attacks of many of its Arab neighbours, the Suez crisis in 1956, the Six-Day War in 1967, the Syrian and Egyptian attack of 1973, the questionable invasion of Lebanon by Israeli forces in 1982 and the intifada of 1987, which lasted for five years, Israel has continued to grow and prosper, with immigrants arriving from many lands. The most recent large wave is from the former Soviet Union.Australia was one of the first countries to recognise the state of Israel in 1949 and to establish diplomatic relations. There is now, and since white settlement has always been, a Jewish presence in Australia. Some of the names that come to mind include the popular Governor-General Sir Isaac Isaacs; Julius Stone, the distinguished jurist; and my particular hero of First World War fame Sir John Monash, who at the battle of Hamel, in leading Australian and American troops, established a battle plan including aircraft and tanks that became the blueprint for battle strategies for decades following.As a youngster from the bush, I remember visiting Sydney and, on one occasion, attending a hairdresser in the city. The barber was the first anti-Semite that I had ever come up against. After listening to him, I left the shop bewildered. Later I struck that sentiment again, this time in a small country town, when I heard young people making comments about one of their number who was Jewish. Their supposed jokes were about gas chambers and ovens. While they may have thought their remarks to be inconsequential, I believed them to be totally lacking in sensitivity.One of my most moving experiences of recent times was a visit to Lyn Cot cemetery at Passendale in Belgium, where the third battle of Ypres took place. There were 1,368 Australians who died there. They are buried alongside many of their British, Canadian and New Zealand comrades. As would be expected, many of the graves are those of Christians. In the middle of one row, I sighted the Star of David on a tombstone. On the tombstone was placed a small dark rock, which I understand means that the grave has been visited by a friend. I last saw graves covered by small stones at a grave site outside Jerusalem. This person had paid the supreme sacrifice for his nation of adoption, Australia.The fundamental principle of Australia's Middle Eastern policy is the security of Israel and its right to exist within secure, internationally recognised borders. Despite the positive aspects of relations between Australia and Israel, there are also areas of contention. Australia has criticised many Israeli policies, including its continuing occupation of southern Lebanon in contravention of United Nations Security Council resolution 425 and its military actions in Lebanon. We have also had differences with Israel on arms control issues, including with regard to chemical weapons. We were also critical of Israel's refusal to ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.A recent invitation by the Australian Prime Minister to the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, to visit Australia was a sign of the good relations that exist between our two countries. The proposed visit will give Australia the opportunity not only to strengthen that relationship but also to speak frankly about those issues on which we tend to differ, particularly regarding the aspirations of the Palestinian people. As friends we should be able to discuss these matters with freedom and respect for each other's point of view.While I was in Israel recently I visited many areas. Two impressed me deeply: one was Yad Vashem, the Jewish people's national memorial to the Holocaust; the other was Masada, which is an enduring symbol to the people of Israel. In visiting Masada, I gained some insight into what that cliff fortress and the state of Israel means to Jews all over the world.The state of Israel has the resources and wisdom to be able to face the future. I am sure that members of this House will join me in wishing Israel and its people well on the occasion of their 50th anniversary. We say to them, `Shalom.'15:14:005025McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My colleague the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) was originally going to speak on this debate at this stage. He has received some unfortunate family news, so I will be taking his place. I will make the points that I am sure he would have made because we recently visited the Middle East as guests of a Palestinian organisation. We went to both the West Bank and the East Bank. We saw parts of Israel and parts of Palestine. While I am sure all Australians recognise that over the last 50 years there have been a lot of changes and a lot of positive things done by the state of Israel, currently both Australians and all people who are in favour of peace in the Middle East would be rather concerned about the present activities of the Israeli government.I think that Australia probably has as big a role to play in this as most countries have—and a greater role than some—because we were one of the first countries to recognise Israel 50 years ago. Australia has always taken a very positive position with regard to the state of Israel in the Middle East, and we have always been very supportive. That is a position that has gone across all shades of political opinion in this parliament. I think it is because Australia has taken that positive position with regard to the state of Israel that we should be concerned about the present circumstances.I echo the point that was made by the previous speaker, the National Party whip in this place, the member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), that there have been some long-running concerns about the activities of the Israeli army in southern Lebanon. Concerns have been underlined in recent days about Israel's refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. One asks why that was so, and of course the reason is that most people suspect that Israel does have a nuclear capability. We have both India and Pakistan detonating nuclear devices and talk that Iran is looking to develop nuclear devices, and that sort of instability in the Middle East is not a good thing.More importantly, the attitude of the current Israeli government—and in particular of the Prime Minister of Israel—to the Palestinian people and the attempts by Prime Minister Netanyahu to derail the Middle East peace talks are surely to be deplored and regretted. I think Australia has a bit of an unfortunate role in this. Recently I visited the city of Hebron, where there is a centre supported by Mr Gutnick, an Australian citizen from Victoria.If there is any proof needed that the extremist views of the people in the Israeli settlement in Hebron are unsatisfactory, it is the appalling news in the paper in the last few days about two Israeli young men from Hebron who killed a Palestinian man, the father of 12. They gratuitously killed him as he was walking along the road. They were driving along the road, lent out of the car, hit him with a baseball bat and killed him. The Israeli police said that it was youthful exuberance. If anything underlines that things have gone wrong in Palestine, it is the fact that people can kill someone and it is said to be youthful exuberance.So while we should all accept that Israel is a country that Australia has given support to, there needs to be a time for change in the Middle East. That time has to come quickly, and the Israeli government and the Prime Minister of Israel in particular have to recognise that the goodwill of countries such as Australia exists only if people are looking for peaceful means of support and for peaceful solutions. The unfortunate experience that one gets when one visits Israel at present is that the government of Israel is not the least bit interested in finding a peaceful solution and a satisfactory outcome for the aspirations of the Palestinian people. (Time expired)15:19:005026Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—I wish to support the motion moved by the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne). I am part of a generation that was born immediately after the Holocaust. For many of us, that event created an awareness of the inhumanity to which racism and anti-Semitism could lead, and an affinity with the state of Israel.Support for Israel has been a hallmark of successive Australian governments, and the relationship between our two nations has endured and indeed been fostered by the strength of the common values and commitment to democracy that the two countries share. Despite the many hardships that Israel has faced and faces, and despite the fact that Israel has effectively been on a war footing since its foundation, it has remained steadfast and unflinching in affirming democratic values and ideals.This government has maintained the commitment to a strong relationship with Israel and to a friendship with Israeli people. It might be worth while noting that, following a recent interview with the Prime Minister, the influential Australia Israel Review commented that John Howard is possibly the best friend that Israel has in Canberra. The coalition can be proud that it has maintained its support and friendship with Israel even during times of difficulty. It is easy to be a friend during times of harmony; it is a lot harder to be supportive during times of hardship.In Israel's 50th anniversary year we need to reflect on Israel's extraordinary achievements, on its ability to create a nation that has grown from 600,000 people to six million people, on its record of economic growth, and on its commitment to democracy. Israel has entered into a complex peace process, and that process has already borne the fruit of peace arrangements with the Palestinian Authority and the people of Jordan. There is still much ground to be covered in the final negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and all of us look forward to continuing progress.Our support of the peace process does, however, need to reflect an understanding of the difficulties that Israel does face. I spoke earlier about the profound impact that the aftermath of the Holocaust had on many of my generation and about its importance in shaping an affinity with the state of Israel. Today we see a generation whose understanding of Israel is powerfully shaped by TV imagery of the Lebanon war, of the Palestinian Intifada, of riots in Israel, and of the actions of Jewish fringe extremists. What is obscured by the television images of conflict is the historical struggle of the Jewish people and Israel's precarious strategic position. The evening news clips do not illuminate the ethnic and pluralist diversity that is Israel today, nor Israel's unswerving commitment to democratic institutions, the rule of law and liberal freedoms.Israel is a country whose size is hard to comprehend, given its international significance and impact. But, as the Israeli Minister for Communications recently noted when she visited Australia, all of Israel is less than half the size of Tasmania. Arrayed against Israel are some of the world's most ruthless and authoritarian regimes, highly militarised and non-democratic regimes that continue, despite the Oslo peace accords and the ongoing peace process, to refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. This is an existential threat that Israel has come to terms with in the same way that the Jewish people have had to come to terms with their near extermination during World War II.The magnitude of this was brought home to me recently when I attended a commemoration by the Greek government of a memorial for the genocide by Nazi forces of almost 44,000 of 50,000 members of the once thriving Greek Jewish community in Thessaloniki. The occasion did serve to highlight the shocking capacity for inhumanity which lies in some regimes and the appalling potential of intolerance and racism.For Israel today, that historic legacy is reinforced daily by the constant threat of conflict and terrorist attack from regimes which not only refuse to accept Israel's right to exist but now have chemical and biological weapons. These are all fundamental facts that we need to consider for, as the motion underscores, despite Israel's accomplishment the struggle for Israel's survival does continue. I commend the motion to the House.15:24:005027Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—Anyone listening to this discussion rather than debate today could not fail to be impressed with the way in which a question of this kind, which in other parts of the world and sometimes in Australia raises feelings of great passion, can be discussed so dispassionately, and the diversity of attitudes towards the position of Israel in the Middle East and its relationship with Palestine, the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians, can be discussed the way that it has been. It is desirable that questions of this kind be brought forward in the parliament so that people do have an opportunity to understand that members of this remarkable institution, in seeking to represent the interests of the wider Australian community, can speak so dispassionately, so objectively, so fairly and so genuinely about questions of this kind.Let me say just in passing that that observation of mine stands in marked contrast with other more recent experiences on the Australian political landscape. The fact that Australia has been a good friend of Israel has been referred to. Yes, it has been a good friend of Israel. I believe the Australian people are good friends of the Israelis. They are good friends of the Jewish people generally. They are also good friends of the Palestinians, and the Palestinians, in turn, are good friends of ours. At the end of 1993, I had the privilege of leading a delegation to the Middle East. I am very much aware as a result of the meetings that we had, the people that we met with, the places that we visited and the cemeteries that we saw, of the great admiration the people of the Middle East have for Australians and for the very great sacrifices in two world wars that were made by Australians on behalf of world peace, and in particular, of course, in expelling the invaders from those areas.But I would like to make this observation too: although we are all friends and would seek to be friends, you are not necessarily a friend of anyone if you blindly defend them on all occasions without recognising the inadequacies, the deficiencies, the faults or the mistakes which are made. I am delighted that there has been such an array of attitudes expressed during this debate.People of goodwill around the world would endorse most of the motion, and I congratulate the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne) on bringing this forward. I think they would also endorse most of a resolution that was carried by the national conference of the Australian Labor Party earlier this year, which I believe would represent the thinking and the even-handed, fair attitude which Australians generally bring to this question. I will quote the first three paragraphs of quite a significant resolution on the Middle East:Labor strongly supports the negotiation of a just, enduring and comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East, based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the principle of land for peace, and the Oslo Declaration of Principles concluded between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, representing the Palestinian people, in 1993.Labor continues to support the right of Israel to exist in peace and security within secure and recognised borders. At the same time Labor also supports the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, including their right to their own independent state.Labor welcomes the Israeli Labor Party's recognition of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and the possibility of a Palestinian state. I believe that expressions of that kind reflect the thinking of the broader Australian community. I am sure that they reflect as well the thinking on both sides of this parliament, and we have seen that. After the comments, the observations, that have been made during this discussion, I commend my colleagues on both sides of this chamber for the objective, dispassionate and fair and balanced way in which they have been able to express their attitudes towards this general question.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.502815:28:005028Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I 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.`It has become an economic fact of life that the strongest companies and the strongest nations are those with the strongest work forces. The high skilled, high wage economies that are thriving today can confidently look forward to continued prosperity.' So wrote David Pecaut in the 1997 July-August edition of Policy Options . He then went on to write about the system breakdown in Canada, of the deterioration of the school to work transition for young adults. He could have been writing about the exact same situation here in Australia.Career guidance in Australian secondary schools is basically non-existent. It is common for just one person to be responsible for career guidance for up to 1,200 secondary students. It is common for the teacher responsible to be selected by what is known as the `short straw' method, and we all know what that is, and it is common for that teacher to have significant other duties as well as career guidance. The expectations placed upon the majority of career guidance teachers in this country cannot reasonably be expected to be met.The suggestion, made by an increasing number of people, to re-examine the option of technical high schools in a 1998 context is being met in some quarters by blanket opposition from politicians, educators and education unions alike. Is this blanket opposition well founded? I am increasingly convinced that many in the anti-technical school camp dismiss the option out of hand because of their involvement or the involvement of their particular organisation in the decision in the first place.In my state of South Australia, junior technical schools were established in 1941-42 as separate organisations. It was not until 1955 that these schools became technical high schools. In 1968 in South Australia, the technical high school and the high school branches of the education department were combined into a single secondary schools department. The choice of schools in public secondary education available to parents and students prior to this amalgamation—and, in some people's eyes, takeover—was about to disappear. Girls technical high schools and boys technical high schools and high schools all became secondary comprehensive high schools. A range of models in secondary education, supported by parents and educators in the field, disappeared. Healthy competition between the schools disappeared. Choice for parents and students disappeared. And I believe respect for public secondary education began to be diminished in the eyes of many in the community from this time. Private school administrators responded accordingly in their expansion plans to the gap and the lack of choice created by unthinking public school bureaucrats in public secondary education.In the 1960s and early 1970s education in my state of South Australia was internationally highly regarded. That regard was delivered by an education department administered separately—primary, technical and high. Innovations in curriculum, methodology, resources and buildings were highly focused, particularly at the primary level. For example, thousands of overseas visitors went to South Australia to see new developments in school buildings. Technical schools at this time were attracting students over the full IQ range and in fact were offering public examination courses, entry to universities as well as practically oriented internal courses.Influential people in high schools and universities were concerned that the trend for many very able young people to choose technical education was not in their best interests. High schools, in my view, were languishing during this period and seemed unable to respond to the challenges and innovations coming from primary and technical high schools. As we all know, nothing focuses an organisation more than dollars. The major report at the time, the Karmel report, on page 187 at 8.33 (d) points, in my view, to the very real reason technical high schools disappeared in my state and in other states as well:Pupil/teacher ratios are generally more favourable in technical high schools and the expenditure per pupil is greater than in high schools, $365 per pupil in technical high schools in 1968 and $295 per pupil in high schools.That was the real reason: money. It always is, unfortunately. Just because education is involved should not deter anyone from that view. Couple that differential in expenditure with professional envy and elitism about resources being spent at primary and technical high schools and you come much closer to the base of the reason for the elimination of technical high schools.At this time preparations were being made to amalgamate the innovative primary division into a single R-12 department. This of course did a number of things. Choices of the types of schools for parents and students at the secondary level disappeared totally. The beneficiary of this foolhardy decision was of course the private sector. Primary education, highly regarded in the community, discovered very quickly that in the new R-12 division they would be starved of resources and, as a consequence, innovations diminished. A teacher drop in morale became commonplace as advocacy for primary schools, once taken for granted, disappeared.The additional money pumped usually into senior secondary education did not achieve the result of restoring the credibility of public secondary education, which is in its own particular crisis and has been for at least the past 20 years. High schools served very well, as they always did, the 30 per cent of students who went on to tertiary education. However, their inability to satisfy public perceptions of the other 70 per cent did put them in somewhat of a no-win situation. Private sector schooling expanded and diversified whilst the image of public secondary education, and over the last 10 years primary education as well, seemed to be conformity bound, unexciting and innovation bare—with perhaps the possible exception of what was happening in a few exceptional schools.Public secondary education needs diversity. A single model of a comprehensive high school is no longer and was in fact never appropriate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has announced that Labor will, if successful at the next election, launch a major inquiry into education at all levels in this country. That inquiry is long overdue. The spending of resources on education in Australia reflects influence, history and tradition; it does not reflect a sound educational rationale. The current problems with literacy and numeracy reflect diminished real funding for primary schools over the past 20 years, to which very few people in administration or government wish to admit. The decreasing credibility of public secondary education is because it is offered as a largely single-style comprehensive high school.If I can return to where I began in this speech, it is no wonder that school to work transition in this country is, for so many students, just a shambles. Certainly lack of choice of type of public school is not the only problem. Poverty, unemployment and lack of jobs for young people all play their part. But the system is wrong. It has been wrong for at least 20 years. And what bothers me greatly, and it is more than just a suspicion, is that vested interests responsible for those decisions 20 and 30 years ago do not want to wear the responsibility that they were wrong. They continue to argue for the status quo. That is unacceptable. I believe significant changes must occur.It is interesting to know who these people are. They include some or all of the following, depending on whom you talk to: certain influential people from our universities, certain senior administrators from educational departments, former politicians, some current ones and prominent individuals within the teacher unions themselves. Reports like the Karmel report got most of their recommendations right but, on the choices of public secondary system available to parents and students, they got that wrong.School to work transition in its current shambles can be traced in part, in my view, to the failure of the above to acknowledge what so many technical high school principals and staff did so naturally—set up the links between schools, industry and business. There was a failure to acknowledge the value of technical high school internal courses. There was a failure to acknowledge the special skills of so many staff in technical high schools. There was a failure to realise that many technical high schools were far more successful than traditional high schools in academic as well as practical courses. There was a failure to appreciate the subsequent demoralisation of so many technical high school teachers who were almost always outvoted on expenditure in budgetary discussions by subject discipline teachers far greater in number in comprehensive high schools.Public secondary education needs diversity, and it needs it now. Parents and students require and need choice. That is natural and in the national interest. School to work transition will never be successful, except in special circumstances, with a single comprehensive high school system. It is time public secondary schools offered more choice in the type of school to parents and students. It is time for technical and, may I say, technological secondary education to be given another lease of life. And there is a place for single-sex schools. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?AV5QUICKMr Quick—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:39:005030Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—This motion is unusual not only for its nostalgic tones but also because the Labor member moving it, the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford), is impliedly contradicting Labor policy. While the motion seeks to suggest that secondary education needs a Commonwealth directed overhaul, it more accurately serves to illustrate that Labor's thinking needs an overhaul. Much has happened since the election of the coalition government to refocus and revitalise secondary education. I am proud to say that not only did I grow up in the electorate of Dunkley but I also went to a government secondary school there when it was known as Monterey High School. This school merged with the nearby Monterey Technical School to form Monterey Secondary College—a comprehensive high school, to use the member for Port Adelaide's language.The Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training (Senator Ellison) pointed out recently that the coalition government want to see strong government and non-government school sectors. This strategy underlines the government's commitment to parental choice. The coalition government, I am proud to say, encourage diversity in and between schools. Our new schools policy has rightly allowed the commencement of places of learning that meet academic and curriculum standards, such as St Anthony's Coptic Orthodox College in Frankston North, not far from where I attended secondary school. Labor's policy is aimed at stifling the wishes of groups of parents who might want to establish such a new school. It is Labor who say that they will scrap the coalition government's new schools policy. It is the Labor Party that appear to shy away from parental choice.In Dunkley, we have seven government secondary colleges, two Catholic secondary schools and two independent secondary schools. All have benefited from the coalition's generous budget provisioning at a time of fiscal restraint. The federal government is expecting to increase funding for government schools by 13.5 per cent on a per capita basis in the period from 1996 to 2000. Total federal funding for government schools will total almost $20 billion between 1996 and 2000. In 1998, under the coalition government, it is $380 million above what it was in the last year of Labor.Funding for non-government schools is also growing impressively, albeit at a less significant rate than for government schools. This funding growth is way above inflation. In the three coalition budgets since being elected in 1996, the Howard government has provided an additional $1.47 billion for schools when compared with what Labor managed in its last year. This is a 22 per cent increase on Labor's federal funding allocation for education. I agree with the member for Port Adelaide that we need options in education. In Dunkley, more than 70 per cent of the students do not go on to tertiary education. Secondary education is not just about preparing students for university or further study, it is also about preparing young people for their working lives and their adult lives and enabling them to secure the opportunities this nation offers.Within the public system a range of options is available at present. Some local schools have a stronger emphasis on vocational education and training at this time, like the Langwarrin Secondary College. Karingal Park Secondary College has an emphasis on studies in information technology. Frankston High is recognised nationally as a leader in the use of computers for learning. Monterey is recognised for its commitment to helping students who have difficulty in learning. Sport, music and the arts are features of other secondary colleges within just my electorate.I was delighted recently to provide a letter of support to Mr Bob Loader, the Chairman of the Peninsula Vocational Education and Training Cluster which has applied to the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation to accommodate and support 19 separate local secondary colleges within the cluster, 11 of them within the Dunkley electorate. It is great to see that all three sectors—government, Catholic and independent—have joined forces and are cooperatively participating in this initiative. Importantly, PVET's management committee includes two local retailers—an important sector of the local economy—as well as a member representing BHP. They are focused on helping our young people to make sensible choices.This combined and coordinated local approach sees vocational education and training offered to students in areas as diverse as information technology, electronics, sport and recreation, some of the traditional trades, hospitality and many others. Successfully completing units offered through this mechanism gives the student a kick-start into an apprenticeship or traineeship and/or credits for a post-secondary qualification. Technical elements are very much a part of contemporary comprehensive secondary colleges.Fewer than one in 10 students in Dunkley presently participates in vocational education offered through PVET. However, more than 70 per cent do not go on to tertiary studies, as I have mentioned. This does identify a gap. While some of this gap is addressed through school to work programs and much of it through individual student endeavour, the capacity clearly exists for further initiatives in vocational education and training. I have previously identified VET infrastructure, like the underutilised workshop and trade facilities at the Monterey Secondary College, as examples of where we could add to the cluster's activities. We are looking at how best to pursue this goal. Melbourne is one of the fastest growing cities in Australia, and there is an argument that the ASTF funding for Victoria should be increased because of this.The coalition approach to improving future prospects for young people is clearly working. The latest figures available to me show that youth unemployment in the Dunkley electorate has declined by one-third since the election of the coalition government in March 1996. This and the 25,000 local jobs created in that period are indeed quite outstanding achievements. Programs such as jobs pathway provide a direct school to industry link through the hard work of people like Paul Gay at the Peninsula Institute of TAFE.In the 1998-99 federal budget, an additional $13 million has been provided by the coalition to assist many more students to find employment or to receive the support of mentors for up to a year. Amazingly, the New South Wales Labor government has declined to participate in this worthwhile federal government initiative. In New South Wales, the ALP has decided that parents and students will be denied access to this much needed program through New South Wales secondary schools.The federal government's full service schools initiative for students at risk also attracts $22.6 million. This full service schools program helps students who are at risk of not completing year 12 or who are dysfunctional in the educational environment to continue with their studies. It remains undisputed that a young person's chances of obtaining ongoing sustainable employment rise if they are able to complete year 12. Local secondary colleges like Mount Erin and Monterey have recognised this fact and, with the support of their local school communities, federal and state governments, and generous private sector sponsors, have implemented excellent programs like newstart and connections respectively.The coalition government now has a national literacy plan up and running. All states and territories have agreed to a national plan for literacy. This is an important area in that it is ensuring that young people have the core competencies that will enable them to make the transition to the workplace and to take advantage of some of the opportunities available to them as they approach adulthood and their life in the work force. The new apprenticeship access program will help 1,900 students to access further training through apprenticeships and traineeships. The coalition is an enabler when it comes to education. Many government and non-government secondary schools are seriously taking up the flexibility and options available to them and are delivering an educational program that is responsive to the needs of parents and students. The motion before us implies that there has been a mass drift away from mixed gender public secondary colleges. This is not borne out by the facts. While enrolment in non-Catholic independent schools has lately increased by 2.5 per cent, Catholic school enrolments have increased by about 0.7 per cent and in government schools enrolments have increased by 0.3 per cent. It is a matter of the share of the growth going to these different sectors of the education system.Changes in enrolments can be due to many factors. Some independent schools in Melbourne, such as John Paul College in Frankston and Padua College in Mornington, are coeducational. Others have chosen, as Peninsula Grammar in Mount Eliza has recently, to admit females after many years of being boys schools. Toorak Ladies College in my electorate retains a strong tradition of catering for single-sex students.There is no discernible push from parents for a change in the arrangements applying to government secondary schools in terms of genders and how they are catered for. Certainly, the level of competition to obtain a place at Melbourne High for boys or MacRob for girls remains very high. Many families choose to pursue this opportunity for a student place if that is their choice.The motion suggests that differential funding of schools should be encouraged to bring about further change. Why? Why pick favourites amongst government secondary schools and imply that governments again know what is better for students than parents do? Why favour a particular type, structure or complexion of government school? Surely it is what the secondary school does to prepare young people for their futures that is important, not what they are called or what they look like.The coalition approach is to support school communities which identify opportunities to better respond to the needs of parents and students with specific funding for programs like VET, jobs pathway, full service schools and the like. On top of increases in per student funding across all sectors, the government is supporting specific strategies to address areas where the traditional education system is not delivering the best outcomes for students. (Time expired)15:49:005033Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I was quite amazed by the previous speaker, the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson), saying that all in the garden is rosy. I do not believe it. He must be in one little centralised part of Australia where everything falls into place—and I find that hard to believe.I am delighted to be able to speak on the motion moved by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford) regarding public high schools and to place on the official record my deep appreciation for the wonderful work happening in those schools, despite the enormous restrictions and inadequate funding which the honourable member for Port Adelaide alluded to.Contrary to public perceptions and as often said in statements made by the honourable member for Goldstein (Dr Kemp), the public high school system, despite inadequate funding, is providing real educational opportunities for our young students, but not the best they deserve and certainly not what they desperately need. To have the flexibility within the public secondary school system to provide a range of schools is, in my mind, vital if we are to provide students within the system with the very best options for their education.This flexibility can only occur if the schools themselves have the total support of the department and its officers responsible for the supervision of the school and the financial capacity to resource the needs of the staff and the students in those schools. By flexibility, I mean that educational learning opportunities are not restrained by having to necessarily operate within the confines of the four walls of the school, and that the schools themselves can put in place as comprehensive and as wide-ranging subject electives as possible. I think this is not happening, despite what the honourable member for Dunkley has said.Practices ranging through one single-sex school and one technical high school and a plethora of standard high schools and district high schools have been in place with little change for the past 40 years in my state of Tasmania. It is all very well to advocate a comprehensive and far-reaching change to operations within the public secondary school system, but unless there is a complete rethinking by departments of funding allocated to these schools, we will continue to dream.That schools can incorporate the flexibility they see as vital to ensure that not only are retention rates raised and maintained but also the students and, just as importantly, their parents can see a real link developing between schools and industry is vital, in my mind. Secondary schools in my electorate—schools once considered to be bastions of conservatism as far as curriculum is concerned—have not waited around for the departmental mind-set to change. Rather, they have attempted to address the appalling retention rates by introducing into their curriculum the flexibility and relevance which I mentioned previously.Dover District High School in my electorate is one such school. Implementation of its aquaculture course, linked into the nearby world-class aquaculture industry, has forced the school to rethink the format of the school structure. It has altered the minds of the community and has seen a dramatic and far-reaching increase in the school's retention rate in years 10, 11 and 12. Importantly too, it has enabled some students to undertake studies at a tertiary level, which was unheard of 10 years ago, and enabled others, more importantly, to enter the local work force in the aquaculture industry.Similar exciting and different options are happening nearby in Geeveston and Woodbridge district high schools and Hobart, Rosny and Elizabeth colleges which provide years 11 and 12 education. An even newer and just as exciting option is under way in Huonville under an organisation called CETCH which links the secondary schools in the Huon and the senior secondary colleges and TAFE colleges in Hobart with industries operating in the Huon Valley. This imaginative and revolutionary format of educational opportunities has, as I said, forced schools, the community and industry to seriously look at the options that are available to senior secondary students and students in high schools.As the member for Port Adelaide alluded to, it is about a mind-set, a flexibility and a wide range that is available. Despite what the honourable member for Dunkley said, this is not happening in Australia. Unless it does happen, we are not going to be a productive society and we are not going to be able to provide our young people who enter school in years 7 to 12 with the opportunities and the educational opportunities that are vital if we are to be a productive society. I compliment the member for Port Adelaide for raising this issue and hope that governments do respond to the concerns raised by members in this House today.15:54:005034Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—The debate that has been brought on by the member for Port Adelaide (Mr Sawford) is an interesting one. I take pride in the fact that I have the opportunity to make a contribution to it. I am on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, much the same as the good member. In the time that we have been travelling around doing various inquiries, I must say that it has been a wonderful education.As far as the motion is concerned, I have not had personal representations from parents or students who have said our current school structure is failing our youth. I understand where the member is coming from, but I wanted to make that point. What I have had is a lot of parents saying that they have had major concerns about the curriculum and, in some ways, the system that the students of this great nation have had to work under. In particular, a lot of parents have said to me that they have genuine concerns in relation to numeracy and literacy. I am well aware that the member for Port Adelaide mentioned that during his opening comments, and I congratulate him for that.It is absolutely important that we as a government and the states have a close look at the curriculum and put more emphasis on the things that are really important to students who are trying to find work—that is, the three R's of reading, writing and arithmetic. Further to that, the other thing that a lot of parents have spoken to me about is capital upgrades within the schools. In my electorate of Capricornia this federal coalition government has put a lot of money into not only the public system but also the private school system. In fact, it runs into the millions of dollars. Emmaus College, the CTCs, quite a lot of the grammar schools and so forth have all done extremely well out of this government, particularly in relation to capital upgrades and funding. The people in my electorate, particularly the students and the youth, are very happy with the amount of money that this government has put into them.I find it a shame that the Labor Party in their term of government would not recognise the importance of the private schooling system. They did not want to recognise it. They did not put sufficient funding into it. Private schools have been calling out for a long time. Something I would like to make the private schooling system aware of is that this government has listened. It understands your problems and has delivered. There is also the amount of money that the federal coalition government has put into Catholic education. Those schools are very happy. It has gone a long way to assisting them.School to work is a great initiative. I think it needs to be developed somewhat, and the sooner the better. The ability to be able to give a youth going to school in today's environment, whether it be in the late years of grades 10, 11 or 12, access to vocational trades and to be able to leave school and start an apprenticeship and then possibly go back and do mandatory subjects like maths and English would be of great benefit to the youth. It is something that I think needs to be significantly developed.I look at my own existence, particularly in relation to my schooling. I finished school halfway through grade 11 and started my apprenticeship as a fitter and turner. Obviously I could not quit school and go to TAFE or something like that. You could, but I wanted to try to go as far through my high school secondary education as I could. If there was the opportunity for youth to be able to get better teaching in relation to that vocational work, it would be a wonderful and great initiative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate5035Question proposed:That grievances be noted.503515:59:005035Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In last Friday's papers we were treated to the interesting news that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) had admitted in a letter to the Sydney Airport Forum that his government would not be able to implement the aircraft noise sharing promises he made prior to the last federal election. Further still, in that same revealing letter the Prime Minister made a concerted effort to wriggle out of the targets for aircraft movements set under the Kingsford-Smith Airport's long-term operating plan, or LTOP as it is referred to. While observers may think that the Prime Minister's admission of failure is a cause for concern solely among residents living in the vicinity of Mascot and in Sydney's inner suburbs, I can tell members of both sides of the House that it is not a confidence builder either for those of us in western Sydney who are living with the prospect of a 24-hour international airport being built on our doorsteps.Just as this government has made many promises regarding aircraft noise around Kingsford Smith and has set various targets concerning LTOP over the past two years, we have heard many statements and seen plenty of commitments given regarding Badgerys Creek airport. Just as we have seen the Prime Minister break his promises on Kingsford Smith, we are certain to see the Prime Minister walk away from his commitments on Badgerys Creek. We had the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, and soon to be ex-member for Hume, in this House saying:The draft EIS completely dispels the concerns that many of us had when we came into office in regard to Badgerys Creek airport. The draft EIS clearly indicates that Badgerys Creek is a superior site.We had the current Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) put out a press release which stated:The government welcomes a widespread and detailed debate about the proposed airport development . . . And promised:Each and every submission, as well as the Auditor's findings, will be taken into account in the preparation of the final EIS as further work continues on the key second airport issues . . . If the Prime Minister's promises on Kingsford Smith cannot be trusted, why should people now believe these commitments on Badgerys Creek? Why should the western Sydney residents action group, the Communities Against an Airport in Western Sydney, believe what government representatives tell them when they meet with them in Canberra this Wednesday? Why should the members of the Western Sydney Alliance, the major anti-Badgerys Creek airport group in western Sydney with a membership made up of 10 major councils in the region, believe the government when they come down to Canberra to meet MPs in a week's time?What faith can they have that the Prime Minister will stand by the promises he and his ministers have made on Badgerys Creek? They can have very little faith at all. The Prime Minister knows this. He knows that his government cannot, or will not, meet the commitments he and his ministers have given on Badgerys Creek. That is why he is preparing for the next stage in his plan to build the airport—the advertising snow job. The Prime Minister wants to dip into his little bag of tricks and pull a swiftie on the people of western Sydney by organising an advertising campaign that will apparently teach us to love the idea of having jumbo jets flying over our roofs 24 hours a day. He is hoping it is going to be a bit like that Peter Sellers movie, and we all remember it, Dr Strangelove—`How I learned to stop worrying and,' in this case, `love the airport.'The government is paying $500,000 to a PR company by the name of Cosway to organise a media campaign designed to—and I will read directly from the Department of Transport and Regional Development's budget portfolio paper:balance the public debate through the provision of factual material and the correction of any inaccuracies in the media. Knowing the Howard government's form on airports, and particularly the EIS process on Badgerys Creek, when we read the words `balance the public debate', we should actually interpret that to mean `bury the public debate'.What the government really intends to do with this advertising campaign is spend half a million dollars burying the independent auditor's report on the Badgerys Creek EIS that found the document's analysis and investigation—using their words—as being `deficient', `limited' and `ambiguous'. This government means to bury the auditor's findings on the EIS—and I again quote their words:As a result of . . . time and cost constraints imposed by the Department of Transport and Regional Development, the draft EIS generally does not go into the degree of detail that could reasonably be expected for such a proposal.The government means to bury the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority's report on the Badgerys Creek EIS that found that it `did not demonstrate the real impacts on the community for any particular site option'. It means to bury the opinion of the head of the New South Wales EPA, Mr Neil Shepherd, who has said:There are serious deficiencies in the Commonwealth's approach and the information available and the EPA is concerned about the implications of this development for air quality in the Sydney basin.This government hopes to bury the opinion of a senior minister in the Howard government, the former New South Wales Premier, the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), who said, `I remain to be convinced about any of the proposals for Badgerys Creek.' And, most importantly, this government means to bury the opinions of almost every state and federal MP in western Sydney, be they Labor, Liberal or otherwise, and the concerns of the people they represent. There are members in this House representing western Sydney who are against Badgerys Creek airport. They know, along with the majority of their constituents, what building a 24-hour international airport in their region will mean to the quality of life of people in the area.The people of western Sydney know they cannot trust the Prime Minister when he says he will provide a transparent EIS, because he has shown them, by breaking his promises on Kingsford Smith, that to do so is folly in the extreme. They know they cannot trust the assertions of the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development when he says that Badgerys Creek is the perfect place to build an international airport, because expert opinion is now saying otherwise. We cannot trust the current minister when he says that public debate is welcomed on Badgerys Creek and that all voices will be listened to on the subject, when he is about to embark on a public relations campaign that aims to smother those same voices.The people do not trust this government on Badgerys Creek, so the government is going to spend half a million dollars trying to hoodwink them. That is the agenda we are starting to see develop before our very eyes. Rather than spend $500,000 on a giant confidence trick to get western Sydney residents to accept Badgerys Creek, the federal government should be addressing the inadequacies of its EIS report. It should be looking at alternative options for building Sydney's second airport, such as Goulburn—locations that have real promise and are supported by the local community. That is the only way this government is going to earn the trust and confidence of western Sydney residents. Until then, we will view the public statements and actions of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Development in regard to Badgerys Creek through increasingly jaundiced and distrustful eyes.We need to take action now. We cannot defer, as the Minister for Transport and Regional Development keeps telling us, a decision on Badgerys Creek until after the election because they will not have their assessments done before December. We know that is inaccurate. We also know in western Sydney that you cannot say to people, `We're going to provide you with a public relations campaign that's going to tell you how wonderful this airport is,' when the people are saying, `How can you tell us that when you can't even answer the obvious questions that we have asked over the development of the EIS?'We need to have action taken in this regard and we need to have that action taken now. We should not have to wait continually for community groups to come down here and try to put pressure on either government or non-government members. We should, as a government and an opposition, stand up and say that Badgerys Creek is not wanted by the people in western Sydney and reject the airport accordingly. I have always said it was the wrong decision. I have heard arguments for and against it, but I have stood firm since 1986. But, more importantly, the whole area has changed. The expectations of the community in general have changed over that period of time, and I believe government has to take that on board as well. What has been designated and designed in a particular way years ago is not what is needed now. When we are going to spend the amount of money that will be required to build a second international airport, it must be there for many years to come. It should not be placed in an area which will face the same concerns and problems as are being experienced now with Kingsford Smith.As I said, this government came into office in March 1996 with great promises to the people who lived in that area. We have already seen the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) resign from the Liberal government because promises were not kept in regard to his constituents in the seat of Lowe. We have already seen continued debate occur in this parliament and outside this parliament over the inadequacies of the EIS and the consultation process. What we do not need now is more money spent by this government out of this particular budget where it clearly shows $300,000 now to be allocated on top of the $200,000 that is about to be spent to tell the people they are going to get that airport and they are going to learn to love it. People are not stupid. They never have been stupid, and they will not take this type of solution as an answer to what they perceive to be a very important problem.I call on the government and members representing those constituents—I am pleased the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) is here today—to take the message loud and clear that the government must act now with the interests of the community at heart and, more importantly, start listening to the citizens that they represent and to make sure that message gets to them very clearly and very succinctly. We do not want a snow job. What we want is action and some honesty from the government, and we want a decision made that is going to be not for next year or the year after but for the building of our community for the next 50 or 100 years, and that means saying no to Badgerys Creek.503716:09:005037Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I have spent the break in the sittings talking to the people in my electorate. They are not concerned about single issues. They are not concerned about how much money Aboriginal organisations are getting, or how much anti-airport groups are getting, or how much women's organisations or ethnic groups or child-care centres or unions are getting. They resent the fact that funding for organisations to deal with single issues is being eaten up by administration costs and that money is never getting to the coalface of the problem. In other words, their taxes are being spent not to resolve problems but to exacerbate them.Taxation on the mainstream people of Lindsay, the battlers that I spoke about in my first speech in this House, has got to a level where they are no longer able to sustain their own welfare, their own ability to look after themselves, as well as all the other demands on government coffers. Their taxes have gone up in the recent Labor state budget—yet again Labor. Taxes went up enormously in that budget and in the previous government between 1993 and 1996 taxes also went up. It has reached a desperate situation in Lindsay. They are working harder and they feel they are not getting ahead. In a few moments I will actually prove that that is the case.Taxation reached such a stage under the last government that people's ability to look after themselves and their individual family's needs has been compromised, and they want that addressed before any consideration is given to other interests further up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. They are concerned that they will not be able to pay off their mortgage in their lifetime. They will not be able to provide for their old age any better than someone who has never worked. They are afraid that their children will have an even harder time paying off a home and securing their old age. There is an overwhelming feeling that we are no longer the lucky country, that we have lost the lucky country. That is why it is such an aberration that Labor has walked away from the tax reform debate and has refused to be involved in some meaningful dialogue where we could come to some bipartisan resolution of tax reform in this country.This loss of faith by mainstream Australia is very distressing for me, because I have travelled the world many times, much more than most people in my electorate, and I know that Australia is better than any other country in the world. I am a migrant to Australia, and I have found this country to be welcoming and full of opportunity. Although I have been delighted to experience a whole bunch of other cultures in my world travels, I will always return to Australia because this is where I have had the greatest opportunity and reached my fullest potential. I have a vision for our nation where my children will have more opportunities than I have had. I have had more opportunities than my parents had, and Australia has given me that.Our kids will have a variety of jobs to choose from in the new world. Over 60 per cent of the kids in year 3 today will be working in industries that we do not even know about yet or have not even described. The pace of change will not slow down. Change is not a nasty word; change is inevitable, and change generally is an endeavour by mankind to improve a situation. There will be a variety of lifestyles for them to choose from. There will be a number of contributions they can make to society and to the community. I believe passionately in this. As a leader, I must make sure that the people who have lost heart in my electorate also believe it too.The barrier to believing in Australia as the land of opportunity that I have described is that in your everyday existence in Lindsay working harder seems to be sending you backwards. With assistance from Glen Thorp, who has designed a computer program called the Family Income Analyser, I can now show for each individual family in Lindsay what their optimal income is. It is real proof that working harder does send you backwards, or at least there are diminishing rewards the harder you work and the higher income you procure.A fellow who is earning $12.55 an hour in a factory will earn $24,800 a year for a 38-hour week. If his wife is at home with three children aged three, six and nine, he will see in his hand as disposable income just on $33,904 a year. However, if things are tough and he does some overtime to get his family ahead, and he really chases the dollar and works 68 hours a week—puts in an extra 30 hours a week—his salary will jump by $17,100 a year to $41,900, but he will only see an extra $1,757 per year; that is, $33 a week for working an extra 30 hours a week. There are many people in my electorate who are in that situation, who are only seeing 10c in the dollar for every dollar that they earn. His wife would be better off telling him to stay home at the weekend and spend time with his children and value that time rather than trying to improve the family's circumstances.Another constituent of mine, who is a single mother of one and whose ex-husband has remained unemployed to avoid paying child support, would be entitled to $15,229 from social security payments, including rent assistance, if she did not work. She is currently working for $24,000 a year or $460 a week, and she is paying $150 in rent. She is around $167 a week better off than if she was not working. If she increases her efforts so that she earns more money and earns another $3,600 a year, she will see $144 of that—that is, $2 a week for an extra $3,600 a year.Just say her ex-husband had remarried, had two more children aged under five, and he was paying $60 maintenance a week. On a salary of $26,000 he would see around $30,008 a year for earning that extra money. If he went out and chased the dollar, did some overtime and earned an extra $2,700 a year, he would see $1. If he did not work, he would receive up to $27,027 a year in social security payments or just $57 a week less than if he was working. The incentive for the battlers of Lindsay, whom I came in here to represent, has been destroyed under this current taxation system. It is wrong and it needs to be repaired. It is an absolute disgrace that the opposition will not even enter into this debate or come to some bipartisan situation where we can offer relief for people in this situation.I found plenty more examples, when sitting outside Centrelink one day last week, where families are better off accepting some sort of subsidy from their employer, such as the use of a car, to cut their family expenses and leave their income lower rather than taking an increase in income, paying the extra taxes and losing various benefits. For the employer, it would be more cost effective to do that too. That is something that the government must be aware of—that this new computer program will be used by human resources managers and employers and everyone to look at that optimum area in which to pay staff.There is no doubt that our taxation system is broken. It is dragging the chain on all the pay-as-you-earn middle class in my electorate. It needs to be addressed. It is Labor's system that it created during its 13 years in government. We have not had much of an opportunity, given the situation in the Senate, to make much of an impact on it, but it needs a drastic overhaul in all areas of the three three-inch volumes of the tax legislation. The complexity of it astounds most accountants and, if you have seen the recent Tax Pack, it is a challenge to most PAYE wage earners.As leaders we must open up communications with our electorates to inform them that we are aware of their struggle, that we are aware that they need assistance in the mortgage and child-raising phases of their lives, and that we are prepared to do something about it. There is much to be done. Whilst the opposition goes on about one-issue wonders, the mainstream is moving away to other areas, and they have lost faith in them. (Time expired)503916:19:005039Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I originally wrote this speech before the Queensland state election, but since then I am even more convinced that my grievance is well justified. I have a grievance on the impact the current economic situation is having on regional Australia. There are huge problems developing as services become centralised, as government departments become privatised and as technology reaches only those who can afford it.Out in regional Australia that leaves the young and the old, the struggling small business and the small farmer without many of the support and advice systems they had before to allow them to survive. Banks have gone, schools and hospitals are closing, policemen are covering bigger and bigger areas, the health system is under huge stress as funds are removed and doctors are leaving country towns and are not being replaced. Employment services are hardly available anyway.Our telephone system is inadequate, and it is vital that we provide telecommunication access for rural, regional and remote Australia comparable with what is available to people in the cities. The community service obligation allows for only a standard telephone service, and this needs to be upgraded to a standard telecommunications access. Whether the new satellite service recently launched will cover these concerns remains to be seen. There is a cost attached to new technology that was not attached to the roll-out of the standard telephone.Australia Post is also under threat of being deregulated, which could lead to the bush paying more than the cities for standard postal services. This would also put at risk other services such as GiroPost, banking, bill paying and tax return filing. Add this to the push for Australia to be in front on the breakdown of tariffs, the removal of bounties and the growing imports that are competing with our own products and we have an economy indicating that thousands will be out of a form of personally developed income by the end of this century.Country Australia will also be deeply affected if tax reform includes a goods and services tax, as many people exist on very low incomes and there is no equity in an overall consumption tax. There is also the very real problem of the paperwork involved in the collection of such a tax for small business and, no matter what is done to try to stem this work, it will be onerous for the family businesses and those who employ only a few people.All this means that the regional and country areas are under incredible pressure. My grievance is that there is no need for all this. There are alternatives. What is the point of a $2.7 billion surplus when the community is hurting? The interesting thing is that some of the economic commentators are now questioning the role Australia is playing in developing free trade. By allowing imports to flow into Australia to open markets elsewhere, it is succeeding in putting extraordinary pressure on many of our high quality value added products.The report I spoke to earlier today, Adjusting to agricultural trade reform, recognises that globalisation and liberalisation of trade are occurring outside our control. It also stated that, despite liberalisation, an overwhelming number of trade barriers continue to impede market access.I can only quote again from the report on the pork industry where the Pork Council pointed out that reciprocal market access conditions should be negotiated with countries seeking access to Australia. Denmark is seeking unimpeded access to the Australian market, but Australian firms wishing to export there would face quotas and tariffs of up to $3,000 per tonne. The pork industry is being decimated by the current importing of Canadian and Danish pork. Prices for pigs nationwide are the lowest in three decades. An average piggery of 100 sows producing 32 pigs a week is losing $1,120 per week. Some producers are having difficulty selling pigs at any price and some producers are being forced to destroy stock.The primary cause of this crisis is the unimpeded access for potentially unlimited quantities of subsidised pork. This is tanta mount to dumping and, with the current Asian crisis, it could well mean that many of the exporters will look around for a suitable country to dump their surplus. Australia will be caught because of its open trade policy and because it has very little protection.Salmon is another product being tied up in Australia's push for open markets at any cost. And it is at any cost. The cost could well be the health and productiveness of the industry. Fish diseases are very easily introduced to water environments and could well wipe out an industry. Why are we even considering allowing uncooked product to enter our shores?There are many other primary products as well as those that have been value added—for example, paper—that are being affected by the open slather trading that is occurring in Australia. This will mean the loss of thousands of jobs. We already have the situation in Burnie and, if left without some intervention, there will be no reason why the rest of the pulp making industry will remain in Australia, let alone Tasmania. We need to have a more careful approach to tariff breakdowns to allow our companies to compete on the same level as others on the same market playing field.Take a region like Tasmania. It is on the periphery of the periphery, where there is little opportunity to influence the national economic direction. It will be put under great pressures. A non-performing state government coupled with a panicking federal government along with trade liberalisation is decimating our economy in Tasmania. The world trade negotiations tend to aim towards the big primary producers—red meat, wool and grain—and this can be at the expense of the smaller, niche market based products such as honey and salmon. We have good products and many of those are on the edge of the export market, yet we are unable to compete on the same level because of the many impediments in place.Australia can take steps to improve liberalisation, but it does not have to take the lead on much of the trade agenda. There should be means by which talks can allow change to happen more appropriately. The government has a role to play in these changes. It must increase awareness among primary producers and exporters of the advantages of networks which can aggregate supply and coordinate marketing in a strategic way. Government also needs to play a role in the restructuring of industries to ensure that those who are going through the process of change are not put at a financial disadvantage to the bigger players in the field. At the moment, pork producers play a very much second-fiddle role to the red meat industry in the export area and in the domestic market. They have had very little assistance at all and pigs are now being slaughtered because of the imports.It makes me very angry to see people on the land—the very people I grew up with, worked with and shared a life with—being rubbed out of existence. The Queensland people said the same thing: `It is not fair to treat us like this.' Simplistic and unrealistic solutions are not the answer. Those who lead cannot just voice the problem. They must be prepared to have the answers or work through with the people to find the answers.The government can intervene and use its financial powers to assist the industry to change, to maintain those who are restructuring, to encourage jobs to be created and to keep services in small towns to assist and enable those who are facing change to continue. Economic rationalism is only good for the big end of town. It does nothing for small business and nothing for the people trying to survive in difficult economic times. There are a lot of opportunities out there. Let us help our communities to develop them.504116:28:005041Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The previous speaker, the member for Lyons (Mr Adams), mentioned regional and rural Australia, and it is quite timely that my address is linked to that part of Australia which I come from as well. I will have a different approach to this topic because I believe that regional Australia has very positive opportunities currently and this will be very much so in the future.In Australia we have 148 House of Representative seats. Of those, 62 are defined by the Australian Electoral Commission as rural or regional in nature. The government currently holds 49 of those seats and 15 of those were picked up at the last election. Non-metropolitan Australia generates about 80 per cent of our export income, and these figures will vary from year to year and will be debated depending on where you draw the lines on the map. We know we have the perennial industries of agriculture and mining, but increasingly we have processed product coming out of regional Australia and contributing to our export income. So no-one would question the contribution of regional Australia in economic terms as well as social and cultural terms. I think it is very important in this discussion that we see the urban-rural situation as the interdependent connection—that is, production from rural and regional Australia contributes to the standard of living in metropolitan Australia and vice versa.If we think about that 80 per cent of export income for a minute or two, it makes a very powerful point at a time when we have a government that is quite determined to encourage exports and to manage the national debt and certainly the Commonwealth debt where it has the most control. By its policy of balanced budgets and the charter of budget honesty, the government can bring an effect which keeps maximum downward pressure on interest rates. We have the right environment in Australia to maximise export income from regional Australia.As of 1 July, we will have a new allowance known as the youth allowance, which has been much requested. It is one of the longstanding requests that I am very pleased, as part of this government, to be able to deliver. The replacement of Austudy, particularly with rent relief, is a significant step forward for rural and regional students who have to study away from home. The taxpayer—and this gets back to the interdependent nature of our economy and people—is going to pick up a little more of the extra costs of education where students have to study away from home. No-one would question in this day and age the importance of higher education and developing the skills of our people.The previous speaker talked about the telephone service and said that there was some potential threat. The reality in my electorate is that we have never had greater opportunities to improve our telecommunications and communications generally. With the networking the nation or regional telecommunications infrastructure fund, we have opportunities now to bring our communications system much more up to the standard that metropolitan people are used to—and we are already putting them into effect. Be it the Internet, a telecentre, a range of data provision services or whatever it might be, there is a very great determination to bring that service up to an appropriate standard.I mention here the Eyre Regional Development Board and the work that it has been doing with consultants and the local community to look at preparing a submission to bring that part of Australia, which no-one would suggest at the moment is up to speed, up to speed over the next few years to the advantage and enhancement of the economy and the region at large. I congratulate those people. It is a great encouragement to see the government giving the support that it is in these policies, which would never have happened under the opposition.In terms of access to regional health, I commend the government for the departments of rural health, which are very much part of our national scene in regional centres now as the focus is brought to bear on those issues which need greater attention in regional health delivery. There is one in my electorate—in Whyalla at the University of South Australia. With some very able people driving that process, I am very confident that we will see improvements to the range of choices and service delivery in the health of regional Australians.The issue of access to Medicare funding is something that I have always had a particular interest in. The reality is that regional people do not access Medicare in the same way that metropolitan people do. It is important to recognise—we may need to look further at this—that the amount of money that is spent on regional health through Medicare per individual is not as great as it is in the metropolitan services. There may be a range of reasons for that, but we need to be very aware—I know this government is, particularly through its departments of rural health—that regional people do not access health services and, therefore, the cost is not the same as it is in metropolitan Australia.The issue of native title has been much debated in this place. The thing that I want to reinforce here again today in my grievance is that not very often do you hear the opposition, or many metropolitan people for that matter, acknowledge that the greatest burden, just about the whole burden, of native title—the inconvenience, the reality of native title—falls on regional people, particularly on a small minority of people. I cannot express my frustration deeply enough for two groups of regional people—that is, Aboriginal people and those people who have native title claims on their properties. The tragedy of this issue is that we see something like $200 million going into legal activities which give no benefit to those on whose land the claim is made and absolutely no benefit to those for whom the claim is allegedly made. If that is not an absolute lesson in nonsense and stupidity, I do not know what is in this country.I want to briefly finish today on the issue of fuel excise. Someone did some figures a long time ago which suggested that regional Australians pay about twice as much per head in excise as urban Australians. They pay 2c per litre on top of that for leaded fuel. The only place in Australia where leaded fuel is really an issue for the environment, as I understand it, is in the metropolitan areas. Not only do we in regional Australia pay a lot more for our fuel because of fuel excise but also we pay twice as much—it would vary in individual circumstances—and we have this insult of the extra 2c for leaded fuel where there is no real impact on our environment. So this fuel excise impacts not only on our daily lives in terms of domestic activity but on everything we do in business, mining and agriculture. This fuel excise may have been justified 30 or 40 years ago for a road repair fund, but it has moved on and now funds everything. The greatest inequity is that it falls doubly on regional Australians. That, I believe, is a matter for serious grievance.504316:38:005043Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—It seems that regional Australia is the issue in the grievance debate today. I follow from both the member for Lyons (Mr Adams) and the member for Grey (Mr Wakelin) in expressing my concern about the state of play in rural and regional Australia. There will be an election pretty soon and there will be plenty of issues confronting the next government. There could be none more important amongst them than the issue of unemployment. I was reading an address delivered by Cheryl Kernot recently. She was talking about the state of unemployment in this country, the question of job security and, just as importantly, the terrible situation we have in this country where middle aged Australians are suddenly finding that they are redundant or no longer required in the work force. She quoted Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who once said, `No country, however rich, can afford to waste its human resources. Demoralisation caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order.'I believe that the root of most of our social problems in the late 1990s has its base in unemployment. There is little doubt that unemployment remains the greatest challenge facing this country. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) travelled the width and breadth of this country prior to the last federal election bleating about the state of unemployment in this country and in particular youth unemployment, the Prime Minister has now run up the white flag on the employment front. His budget basically tells us that unemployment in this country hovers around the rate at which it was when he came into office. He has basically given up. There is no hope for the unemployed in this country.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—It's lower.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The honourable member for Sturt interjects and says that it is lower. We can argue about 0.001 of a decimal point if he likes, but the reality is that struc tural unemployment in this country is in no better position now than it was when John Howard first came to office.In the Hunter region the unemployment rate is now about one percentage point higher than it was when the Prime Minister came into office. At around 10 per cent, it is more than two per cent higher than the national average. In the Cessnock local government area, the subregion that I want to focus on today, the unemployment rate is more like 12 per cent or probably higher, depending on whose figures you listen to. Indeed, it has been put at as high as 15 per cent. The youth unemployment rate in the Cessnock local government area has been estimated to be in excess of 30 per cent. The unemployment rate in the Hunter and, in particular, the Cessnock LGA continues to be a major issue.Since 1994 about 1,400 coalminers have lost their jobs in the northern district. Almost 70 per cent of them lost their jobs in coalmines within the Hunter electorate. About 900 of those job losses occurred in the last two years. Unfortunately, there are many more retrenchments to come because of the state of the world coal price market.A very large share of those who have lost their jobs in the coalmining industry reside in my electorate of Hunter. A very large share of them reside in the Cessnock local government area. The situation in that LGA is at crisis point. The Cessnock LGA and the communities that make it up were basically founded on coal. The area once boasted more than 30 coalmines. Its last closed recently.We used to have a strong textile and clothing industry, but it has now moved on. Our kids used to go to BHP and Comsteel and those major industries in Newcastle for their apprenticeships, but those opportunities are very few these days. They also went to the coalmines for their apprenticeships. Those opportunities are also very limited.Our great white hope, tourism, now faces new challenges due to the Asian economic downturn. There could be no area more worthy of targeting in terms of special Commonwealth assistance than the Cessnock local government area. What I am asking today is for the Prime Minister to look at that area and consider very seriously the implementation of a special economic adjustment package for the Cessnock local government area in particular.Plenty of scope exists for assistance from the Commonwealth. It is the only level of government with the resources available to it to undertake it, and it should do so. Cessnock is far from dead. Its people have a very strong spirit, and they will fight on. We have a very strong skills base, it is a very strong tourism destination and its wine growers are focusing on the export market. It is geographically close to Sydney and the port of Newcastle. It still has a strong aluminium smelting industry, and there is significant scope for expansion. It enjoys a huge slice of open land which is capable of being rezoned for industrial use.All the Cessnock LGA needs is a leg-up, and the federal government should be providing it with that assistance. I believe that that assistance can come in the form of a three-pronged approach. First, the federal government could make money available to undertake further studies into new economic opportunities for the Cessnock local government area. The New South Wales government is already lending assistance in terms of the Upper Hunter 2000 Task Force. Because so many of the Cessnock LGA residents rely on the upper Hunter for their work, that is providing enormous assistance. But the federal government should be lending assistance in this area. Second, the federal government can assist by providing additional money for infrastructure programs. There are plenty of opportunities for it to do that. Finally, it can assist by putting in place a labour market adjustment package to assist those who have already been retrenched from the coalmining industry and unfortunately will be retrenched over coming months.Turning back to infrastructure projects, as I said, there are plenty of opportunities. A good start would be the restoration of funding for what is known as the `Kurri Corridor', a major highway which would link the northern end of the F3 freeway to the New England Highway north of Branxton. This is a significant project which would not only provide an enormous economic boost to all the nearby townships because of the proximity it delivers to Sydney but also provide a by-pass of the Cessnock LGA and, in doing so, relieve it of a major problem stifling the growth of its CBD—the national highway traffic, particularly heavy vehicle traffic that continues to pass through that town.If the federal government is not prepared to commit itself to the Kurri Corridor, it can turn to a more simple bypass of Cessnock, one which has already basically been designed and which would cost around $30 million. The state government is committed to it, as are a number of other companies interested in establishing certain industries in the community. All that would be required would be a Commonwealth contribution. Alcan—or Capral as it is now known—is still looking at a fourth potline for its primary aluminium smelting process. There is a great opportunity there for the government to become involved by asking Capral how it can assist in those endeavours. Cessnock Council is looking at a new industrial estate, known as the Tomalpin Industrial Estate, which would provide great opportunities for the Cessnock LGA. I am sure the federal government could assist the council in its endeavours.There are other examples. A pipeline project delivering water from the Hunter River to the vineyards, which would provide a boost to growth volumes, is a perfect example of an infrastructure project where the Commonwealth could assist. There are plenty of them, and today I am appealing to the Prime Minister to have a look at the Cessnock LGA. It is in a crisis situation and needs help. (Time expired)504416:48:005044Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I have aired this grievance before, but it needs to be raised again. This time I bring some startling figures to my argument in the light of recent developments. Governments must not exit the business of funding major regional infrastructure. It is simply not equitable to ask one generation of farmers to pay for a major water storage that would benefit future generations of farmers growing perhaps totally different crops.In my speech of 2 March this year, I spoke about an emerging fruit and vegetable industry in my electorate, in particular in the Bundaberg district, and of course about an established sugar industry highly dependent on water but needing more for future growth and sustainability. I am concerned that the House may not appreciate the full extent of these two industries. When I talk about an emerging fruit and vegetable industry, I am not talking about an industry just picking itself up off the ground—quite the contrary. It is one which over the past two decades has established a level of relevance, credibility and scientific innovation which entitles it to be considered in a national leadership role. It has demonstrated that it can deliver the nation's largest crops of tomatoes, macadamias and zucchinis. The district is clearly the ideal location for subtropical tree crops and it is now poised to move to its next level of production. But the big `if' is water. The truth is that while Bundaberg Rum and fields of sugarcane may stand as potent symbols of the region the future of Bundaberg could be just as readily identified with macadamia nut trees. It is projected that, by the year 2000, Bundaberg will provide 30 per cent of Australia's macadamia nuts.To appreciate the size of this expanding horticultural industry, it is useful to consider its parallel with the sugar industry. The four Bundaberg region sugar mills contribute 13 per cent of Queensland's $1.8 billion crop. This represents a production value of about $230 million for Bundaberg's four sugar mills in 1997. The Queensland cane growers organisation estimates that this has a flow-on effect to the economy of a further $1.55 output for every $1 value of sugar produced. Thus, this sugar production is worth half a billion dollars, and that is before value adding in the shape of refined sugar products, rum production, soft drink manufacture and by-product production, all undertaken at the regional level.By contrast, the fruit and vegetable industry had a production value in 1996 of $109 million. This was an increase of $20 million since 1986, and forecasts are that the value will continue to rise rapidly as new and massive plantings of tree crops come on line. I refer in particular to mangoes, macadamia nuts, lychees, avocadoes and citrus.To illustrate the point even further, it is interesting to note that banana plantings have increased 500 per cent in the last five years as people enter this innovative part of the industry. There are 20 to 30 ground and trestle crops, the largest of which are represented by tomatoes, zucchinis, capsicums and rockmelons.In all, about 40,000 hectares of the region are devoted to sugar production, with just 7,250 hectares devoted to horticultural crop production. It is interesting to note that the fruit and vegetable industry covers only 16 per cent of the available land, yet represents 32 per cent of the agricultural value of the district. But all these crops work in a very narrow window of opportunity requiring superb quality to meet the highest export standards, and I return to the theme of the grievance—the need for certainty in water supply.Coupled with the responsible use of water, there is an ethos of environmental responsibility amongst the farmers whom I am referring to. They are at the cutting edge of integrated pest management techniques which can reduce the use of chemicals in farming by way of different alternatives. It can mean that different bugs are used to eliminate other bugs. It can mean that the amount of heavy chemicals used, once used in some quantity, by being more easily focused at better times, can also be reduced.John Hall of Crop Tech is at the cutting edge of this technology. These farmers have also devised better and newer ways of disposing of plastic mulch. In the bad old days, you would see these ripped off, burnt or blowing around paddocks. But the Halpin brothers of Bundaberg have devised a machine that can do the job—bale the plastic, compact it and send it away for recycling.This industry boasts farmers like Isis Shire mayor Bill Trevor, one of the country's biggest growers of zucchini; the Manera family of Elliott Heads, large growers of tomatoes, capsicum and rockmelons; and the Philip family from Cordalba, massive tomato producers, who are already well established as suppliers to local and export markets. They have all contributed in large part to the export drive of the community.But there is a quiet revolution taking place over and above these great experts. The planting of tree crops has skyrocketed in the past 10 years from 200 hectares in 1986 to 2,600 hectares in 1996—that is a factor of 13 times in 10 years. Macadamia nuts cover 1,070 hectares and are producing crops worth $4.4 million a year, but the majority of trees are yet to reach maturity. It takes 10 years for a tree crop to reach maturity, and some trees do not produce any crop whatsoever for the first three years. There are at present an estimated 300,000 macadamia trees in nurseries in the Bundaberg district, enough to double the present number of trees in production. It is estimated that, by the year 2010, macadamias could be worth $30 million to the Bundaberg district alone.Farmers, like the region's biggest avocado grower, Ron Simpson from Goodwood, are only just starting to see their massive investments in tree crops beginning to pay off, and the need for the security of water supply for peace of mind rests heavily in this field. Already, men with vision like John Dorrian of Childers have gone to the next level and are producing boutique tertiary products on farm for direct sale to supermarket chains and wholesalers. John is producing guacamole, tomato and mango purees and pastes to maximise the efficiency of his farm operation.The industry is also fortunate in having a highly organised and responsible grower association, the Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, which also has links to similar groups in Childers, Gin Gin and northern Hinkler areas under the umbrella of the Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. The Bundaberg fruit and vegetable growers are fortunate to be led by their president, Rob Rehbein, with the administrative expertise of executive officer and highly respected agronomist, Dianne Fullelove.This is no slouch industry belly-aching to government, but one which has the runs on the board in terms of production, administra tion and industry leadership. Their views deserve to be heard, but there is something holding back this potentially massive industry—that is, the security of water supply. A farmer risks more than three years of hard work and investment if he does not meet his window of opportunity.A recent flood event in the Burnett River illustrated how desperate the need for water really is. The irrigation scheme is built around a dam 1.1 times the size of Sydney Harbour, the Fred Haigh dam, and is now at four per cent of capacity. The dam on the Kolan River was originally meant to be complemented by a similar dam in the Kalliwa-Mingo-Paradise area on the Burnett River, but this has never eventuated. In the recent flood event on the Burnett River, the cheapest proposed version of the dam, a 750,000-megalitre structure, could have been filled in a week. By comparison, the 560,000-megalitre Fred Haigh Dam on the Kolan River received only 1,000 megalitres.The message from the Queensland election goes to emphasise the depth of hurt in rural Australia. The Wide Bay-Burnett is hurting more than most. While it is true that some industries are cyclical in nature, others suffer because they cannot reach their full economies of scale to make them truly competitive. It is a tragedy if these industries are written off in the name of economic rationalism. It is an outrage if the skills of farmers at the cutting edge of the world's best practice are wasted for the sake of a modest amount of water. It is a national disgrace if a potentially productive region languishes in the nation's worst unemployment for the sake of an equitable share of the country's infrastructure.504616:58:005046Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Some 18 months ago in an adjournment speech I reflected upon how each of us, when we come into this House, is influenced by our backgrounds, is influenced by the regions in which we live, is influenced by the way in which those communities have affected us. Therefore, when I look upon the result of the Queensland election Saturday before last and the ramifications and the issues that it brings to the national stage for debate, I do so in the context of somebody who represents an electorate where something like 36 per cent were born overseas. If you take into account those who were born overseas or have one or both parents born overseas, that rises to 62 per cent.That influence has very much led me to be very concerned that there should be now a growing debate where the nature of Australia as a multicultural society should be put into question. For instance, on the front page of the Age on Saturday, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) mused that perhaps we need a word better than `multiculturalism'. Our National Party colleague the honourable member for Hume (Mr Sharp) says that we should do away with multiculturalism and go towards some concept of monoculturalism—whatever that might be—in the context of Australia that has had migration for the past 200 years and, before that, 40,000 years or more of indigenous people inhabiting this island continent.To say that those people, when they come to Australia, should in some way conform to some form of monoculture, to indicate that perhaps the indigenous people should also conform to some form of monoculture, is naive. When members query the nature of multiculturalism and have some concern that it is not about people believing in Australia, giving a commitment to Australia, I would like to assure them that my experience, in the areas that I have represented and the area I have lived in all my life, is that migrant Australians very much see themselves with a high degree of commitment to Australia and a great degree of pride in Australia.This morning, as a result of the generous gesture of Speaker Sinclair to enable community groups that are sponsored by members to be brought onto the floor of the chamber on Monday and Tuesday mornings, I had a group of Macedonian elderly citizens in this chamber. They are Macedonian elderly citizens by their own self-identification, I might add, but the pride that they had in being able to come onto the floor of this chamber was real. The pride that they had in coming to visit their parliament was real. These are people that know they are Australian first. They know that: they live that. But, as part of a multicultural Australia, they have been able to share with their fellow Australians those aspects of their culture that give us greater strength and those aspects of their culture that are very positive. When speaking to the many ethnic communities in areas like the northern suburbs of Melbourne, I have always emphasised that they should be sharing with their fellow Australians the aspects of their culture that are positive but, in doing so, have an understanding that they are working within a framework of a legal system and a framework of tolerance that characterises Australia.There has been much suggestion that Australia is being Asianised. How it is being Asianised I am not sure. If it is being Asianised because we are encouraging migrants from Asian countries to share with their fellow Australians aspects of their culture, I hope that it is happening. But it is not something that gives me great fear. It is something that I would celebrate, because Australia can only be strengthened by those who have come, as the second verse of our national anthem says, across the seas to share those positive aspects with us.I am reminded of an event that occurred last year. It was an event sponsored by the Chinese communities of the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. They repeated it this year. It is a kite festival that they hope to make an annual event. I reflect upon the events of the opening ceremony at last year's kite festival when I was seated, along with honourable member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), in the official seats. We watched the consul of China speaking at the opening. Behind him was a row of bamboo stakes upon which there were banners—a whole row of them. Beyond that there were two children with an Aussie Rules football using those bamboo stakes as goalposts. As Australian kids that play Aussie Rules do, they were kicking for goal, kicking the ball back. When those two kids turned around so that I could see their faces, there was no mistaking that their ethnicity—if they were to self-identify—would be Asian. But they were truly Australian. They were people that will go on to make, I hope, a great and significant contribution to Australia into the next century.So with all this talk and this challenging of the basis of our migration program, all this talk and fear that has been engendered, I only hope that those that appear, through their actions during the Queensland election, to have placed great store on these matters will think again. For those that are misinformed, we have a duty to ensure that they understand. We have a duty not to lecture them, as some suggest the majority of members of this place do. Those of us who are members of the major parties are being accused of being those that lecture from on high. I think that this place, in the way it operates, has very much depended upon people listening as elected representatives. It is a place that has depended upon that but it has also experienced a great deal of frustration when it has been difficult to deliver for all. That is why I have a degree of disappointment that the campaign that was promised by the government, an anti-racism campaign, has yet to materialise.I find some difficulty in raising this issue in the partisan way that I am, but I have to do so. In the appropriation debate, in the consideration in detail of the immigration and multicultural affairs portfolio, I raised these matters. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) gave a whole string of reasons why he had not been able to put a campaign in place. But the very next week, in a cabinet meeting, the minister was once again rolled on putting this campaign in place. I am not sure exactly who the people are that continue to roll Minister Ruddock on this important program, but if the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is amongst them, the Prime Minister has to show some leadership on these matters.Just as in the United States where President Clinton, in facing a great and visible degree of intolerance and racism, has had to publicly confront this issue, Prime Minister Howard has to confront it. One of the aspects of this debate that is missing is the educative role of our political leadership and of this parliament. We have to ensure that people understand that one of the great strengths of a multicultural Australia is its tolerance, its diversity. That is not something that we should shrink from or fear. (Time expired)504817:08:005048Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—The national debate regarding immigration has been done a great injustice, both inside and outside the chamber. I note that the speech of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins), in some respects mirrored my own, which is on the general subject of immigration and multiculturalism. I wish to use the grievance debate today to set the record straight on Australia's present immigration program. The truth of the matter is that there have been some very significant changes to Australia's immigration program from the days of the former Labor government's haphazard approach.In the Labor government years Australia's immigration program lacked integrity and a positive, nation building element. Isolated instances of procedural abuse in immigration have undermined community confidence in the program. The coalition government has paid special attention to minimising the scope for abuse of the system. Sham marriages, queue jumping and exhaustion of review and judicial procedures by immigration applicants were identified by this government as three areas which needed to be addressed.By way of an example, offshore immigration applications for spouse, prospective marriage and interdependency categories have fallen by 45 per cent since the coalition government came to office. Under Labor, the immigration levels had grown for three consecutive years, with an emphasis on family reunion immigration at the expense of the skill supplementation categories of the immigration program. In 1995-96, six out of eight immigrants came to Australia through family reunion or humanitarian means. The immediate consequence of this policy was that an unacceptable number of immigrants came to Australia with relatively poor employment prospects. With no real explanation offered to the Australian public and the obsessive persecution of anyone who questioned Labor's policies, Australia's immigration program lost direction and was no longer operating in the national interest.The skilled migration stream now represents almost 50 per cent of the non-humanitarian migration program. There is an overwhelming body of evidence which strongly indicates that if a significant number of migrants are young, with good English skills and vocational skills that are recognised or can be utilised in Australia, then they will be have an eminently positive impact on the economy. The government's emphasis on skilled immigration is a part of a bigger picture for Australia in the next century, and it is something that I will discuss in greater detail during the debate.Of course, the coalition government's immigration policy extends beyond pure economic considerations. The government's immigration policies have sought to strike a balance between social, economic, environmental and humanitarian considerations. We have a moral obligation to offer a home for refugees—people who have suffered atrocities that most Australians, including me, could barely imagine—and this remains a key component of the government's refocused program. Our contribution on these grounds is influenced by the findings of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.Contrary to the exaggerated generalisations made and believed by some, Australia's refugee program is relatively modest given our circumstances. Australia will never be seen as a middle ranking world power if we do not extend an invitation to people from other countries who have experienced the most profound injustices. Approximately 10,000 refugees make Australia their new home each year. To assist them in this transition, the government initiated the humanitarian settlement scheme to ensure the most efficient coordination and integration of essential services to refugees. It is in the national interest to remain completely committed to this particular stream of immigration.It is also in the national interest for the coalition government to continue to develop the skilled immigration program. Since 1945, 5.5 million people have decided to make Australia their new home, and nearly three million children have been born in Australia with one or both parents born overseas. Immigration has provided over 45 per cent of our population increase since 1947. During this time, we have grown economically and maintained our status and economic power, particularly in our own region where our gross domestic product remains significant.If it were not for these vigorous levels of immigration, Australia's population would probably be less than 10 million, and we would be a very different country than we are today. Likewise, if by 2025 we have chosen to stabilise our population, we will have altered Australia's place in the world and in the region—and not for the better. We will more and more have to rely on our allies in trade matters to press our case for the opening of markets and other global reforms. There are several means available for Australia to maintain our status in the region into the next century. A superior and broader education system, a trading industry which continues to become more competitive, an efficient waterfront and a stronger economy underpinned by responsible budgets are but a few of the government's strategies.But another important strategy is to harness all the positives that a vibrant immigration program can bring. The coalition government's immigration program will yield numerous positive economic effects. For starters, the unemployment rate, inflation, average incomes, budget deficit, foreign debt, gross domestic product and gross domestic product per person are not adversely affected by a balanced immigration program. Many people in the business community know that every time an apprehensive and excited immigrant steps off a ship or a plane, they potentially add four new jobs to the work force.The Housing Industry Association, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry—to name but a few—have all endorsed a balanced immigration policy as a useful tool for encouraging growth in the Australian economy. A study conducted by the federal Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in 1997 found that 78 per cent of skilled migrants operated their own business, of which 62 per cent were exporting with 12 per cent of those exporting more than $1 million annually, and that 23 per cent sold import replacing goods and services in Australia.Fundamentally, a balanced immigration program is good for our country. It expands the economy by expanding the labour supply and therefore generating higher levels of demand for locally produced goods and services. Skilled immigrants, who have on average better qualifications and a higher level of schooling than their Australian counterparts, will improve the quality and flexibility of our labour force, will help to reduce labour shortage do all this without the costs to Australian industry and will do all this without the costs to industry and the Australian taxpayer of the education and training they have had in their home country.Immigrants increase our population, thus helping to generate economies of scale and enabling Australian industry to produce a wider range of goods and services using more capital intensive techniques, making it viable for Australian businesses to expand overseas. Many of our risk takers, from Sir Arvi Parbo to Helen Sham-Ho, have been drawn from the ranks of immigrants. They have created new businesses, jobs and export markets. They have brought capital from overseas to invest in Australia and they have encouraged their former compatriots back home to invest similarly in Australia.Immigrants increase our population, and so they create a larger base of people from which to draw public revenues, thus creating resources for Australian, state and local governments to build facilities like schools, hospitals, universities, roads and other public infrastructure. While it is hard to quantify, immigrants have expanded the horizons of Australians, creating a tolerant and more intellectually and culturally rounded people, so that Australia can genuinely take its place as one of the most successful and harmonious nations in the world.That is why the coalition government has redefined and refocused Australia's immigration program. In 1996-97, the number of skilled and special eligibility migrants rose from 25,800 to 29,000. At the same time, the number in the family reunion category was reduced from 56,700 to 44,900, and the number in the humanitarian category fell from 15,000 to 11,900. This trend will continue apace in 1997-98. The intake this year will be 32,000 in the family reunion category, 36,000 skilled and special eligibility migrants, and 12,000 in the humanitarian programs.State governments are also recognising the benefits of immigration. About three years ago in my own state of South Australia, the state government announced a $1½ million immigration program called Immigration SA which was designed to help prospective migrants to South Australia achieve the necessary points to become part of the pool from which migrants are chosen. The basic fundamentals of that program are that a job be waiting for them here in Australia and that they have the skills to fill that job. So the state government is matching potential migrants with jobs in South Australia.The Victorian government, through its minister Mark Birrell, also announced some years ago a program to match migrants in Australia who are finding it difficult to get work with jobs in Australia, because quite clearly there are barriers for new migrants to get work that perhaps are not experienced by the average Australian. Like any government policy, a flawed immigration program can be detrimental to Australia's interests. However, a robust and vibrant immigration policy can deliver real and enduring benefits to Australia. This is the distinction that the former Labor government could never put into practice, and a distinction that the One Nation Party could never make.I am delighted to have had the opportunity this afternoon to comment on the immigration program. I am also pleased that the Labor Party and the coalition have similar approaches today on how to deal with the migration and multicultural issues that have plagued us in the past. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! In accordance with standing order 106, the time for the grievance debate is concluded, the debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5051r471Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendment No. 5 disagreed to by the House.Bills5051Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Bill 1997 Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997 Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill 1998 Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Bill 1997 Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Repeal Bill 1998 Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill 1998 Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 1998 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 Miscellaneous5051UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Thursday, 25 June 1998, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Bills5051r5445051Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.17:19:005051Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—I do not intend to take much of the House's time on the Taxation Laws Amend ment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998. It is very difficult to deal with these debates when you have other matters pending. I do not intend to oppose the bill, but it should be accepted by this House that what the government is offering is too little, too late. To offer tax deductibility of $5,000 per year for people on incomes of under $21,000—it is $20,700, I think—is really bordering on the laughable. People whose income is at that level are not the people who are going to be greatly interested in landcare, no matter how pressing that need is.Given that the government says that it is trying to assist these people—and like so much of what the government says these days in respect of the rural sector, it does not do much of substance—I would have thought it would have been much better to allow a deduction at a multiple of the cost. People at this income level are on about 34c in the dollar. One could double it or even triple it so there was actually no cost, because the benefit is to society if landcare measures are properly undertaken.The greatest environmental threat to this country is, without a doubt, soil erosion and salinity. The second biggest problem is probably city pollution, and yet we are constantly harassed by the pseudo-environmentalists with talk of forests, but we have good forest management. Soil erosion and salinity are very important issues. They are important not just for the land-holder but for the whole of society, and the whole of society should bear that cost because the whole of society is the beneficiary. It appears to me that this legislation, as I said earlier, is a matter of too little, too late.It is not clear in the legislation whether this deduction would be available for landcare programs that took place off the property of the person making the claim, for it may well be that the biggest environmental impact would occur if work were done off that particular property. It is my view that all deductions should be on a watershed basis and not on the basis of the property. I cannot determine from reading the legislation whether the deduction would be available if funds were pooled—if a group of people decided to get together to do a project that was going to be of benefit to that particular water catchment area. These are the things that I believe need to be addressed.When you have economic pressure in the rural sector as it is, the environment is going to be neglected, and that is unavoidable and inescapable. What has to be addressed is commodity prices, and the attitude of the government flies in the face of this. We see a government locked into this policy of economic rationalism, which is not an economic theory but a political ideology, the ideology of big business to control world trade and allow imports of imported produce which is devastating for the rural sector. It does not make them more efficient. It simply kills them. This has to be realised.If the government was to address this problem, you would have a situation in the bush where people could afford to undertake real environmental matters and address them to the benefit of not only themselves but the whole society. I believe it is important that these matters be addressed, but this will not occur while our rural producers are under constant threat from imports produced in countries that do not have to meet our standards and where the costs are not comparable.Products are often dumped in this country and the government is incapable of doing anything about it. What springs to mind is the immediate problem of pork being introduced into this country. It is not coming from Canada. It is coming from the United States. It is coming from ConAgra. ConAgra farms in the United States ship to ConAgra plants in Canada to ConAgra agents in Australia. The government is supporting multinationals at the expense of Australian farmers. This will be the position of the opposition as well. There is no difference there. Until these matters are addressed, nothing substantial is going to happen in this area of environmental control. This bill targets very low income farmers. That is not going to achieve anything substantial. What the government has is a bill which it can tout to make itself look good, particularly in the cities of Australia, but in reality it is not going to do much for the rural sector at all. Obviously I am not going to oppose the legislation, nor am I going to seek to bring in amendments because I know that process is useless and futile in this House. I just hope that somebody in the Senate will take up the matters I have raised and look at bringing in amendments in the Senate to try to improve this legislation.17:26:005052Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—In my electorate of McMillan landcare is a most difficult and most important program. Often Gippsland tends to be seen as not needing this type of program, but we need it as much as any other group. Governments have put an enormous amount of money into this area. The Hawke government, the Keating government and now this government have put an enormous amount of money and funds into the Murray-Darling Basin and the whole issue of land degradation. Those issues are equally important in areas of usually high rainfall such as Gippsland in the seat of McMillan, which I represent. I want to inquire further into this because this is directed at small farmers—not at large scale operators, who have an opportunity to plant and to get a third rebate on those funds that they invest into their properties. It is extremely important that farm families across Gippsland—across Australia, for that matter—get the same opportunities as our bigger operators or our landcare groups across a regional area to have some local, permanent and long-term effect. So this government in the Advancing Australia program has moved very quickly in a short time to address itself to the issues of landcare and the family farm. The whole process of Agriculture—Advancing Australia has directly supported family farms right across Australia. If there has ever been a government before in Australian history that has said, `We are going to support families but we are going to support them in their workplace, we are going to support them in their TCF industries, we are going to support them in their workplace, we are going to support them in the timber industries and we are going to support them on the family farm,' it is this government. Enough change has been wrought upon country areas right across Victoria. The bush is sending the message, and we are hearing the call. You only have to be listening to those communities when they say that they are under pressure, particularly in Gippsland. East Gippsland is now having a problem, although we have had drenching and blessed rains. They have been under pressure particularly because of drought. They have land degradation. They have salt patches. They need the opportunities to do the landcare work that is important to them. It is not just about planting a few trees; this is about making provision for fencing rivers and streams. It is about the removal of weed growth—in our area, the willows that are growing in the streams right throughout Gippsland and therefore will be causing degradation a long way down the track.This government has moved to support local people and local areas over and above the $92 million that we have spent on landcare in the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. It is direct support for local people that feeds off the good work that has been done in local areas but then adds to that. It is like value adding in landcare whereby we are giving people on their own farms an opportunity to make a difference to the environment of this nation. We are doing it for a very good reason. We are not looking at next year or the next couple of years; we are looking at the difference this government is going to make in a 10-, 15-, 20-, 30- and into a 50-year outlook.Whatever criticism there may be of any government at any time, the thrust of our Agriculture—Advancing Australia package has been to keep people on their farms, to give them the opportunity to regenerate, to protect them on their farms, to give them decent drought relief that they have never had in Gippsland before. We played a major part in that. Under the previous government they would never have been given that opportunity; they would have been wiped off. It took this government to say, `Yes, we are prepared to address the issues'—and we have done that right across Gippsland.This landcare proposal, and the tax treatment of it, will make a difference over the long term to the way a farm property is protected, to land degradation as it currently exists and to the long-term decision to fence off streams. We are used to having direct access to those streams, and we are saying to farmers, `We want you to fence them off, to plant around them and to protect them.' We are working with the state governments in those areas, too.This report entitled The state of the environment Australia: 1996 executive summary was in the process of being formed under the previous government and was delivered by the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill. It is a good read for people, particularly members, who are dealing with current issues of not only land degradation but the whole of the Australian environment. The key findings from this first independent national report are important for Australia. They are important for every regional seat, and we are going to have to take them into account.Under the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia process, and in conjunction with Senator Hill's department, we are conducting a $40 million water audit. Why is it important? It is the combination of all that we are doing in landcare, all that we are doing in the environment and all that we are doing in the outer areas of our cities, going right out into our regions and delivering on behalf of country people and the generations of country people that will follow them.We have to address ourselves to rural decline not only in the socioeconomic areas. Quite often we find that for rural people this is not just about the legislation we put through, it is not just about the economics; it is about people and how the government addresses itself to people. That is what we are doing in Gippsland and right across Victoria. I would like to take a short time to talk about this report, State of the environment Australia. It is there for all of us to read. I am sure that if anybody contacts my office or the office of their local member they will be able to get a copy of the key findings from the first independent national report. The report presents the work that we need to do right across the nation.This government, through the measures that are part of this taxation bill and the benefits that will flow to small family farms and small communities throughout Australia, will deliver one of the most impressive environmental packages ever brought before this nation. So we are protecting local businesses and we are protecting industry. We are looking closely at how we can make a difference not only in Gippsland but throughout Australia on the issues that are presented every day from an environmental perspective.The great push has not been a top-down exercise from this government; it has been a bottom-up, grassroots exercise coming from local people who said to us, `If you want to deliver for local people, here's a way you can do it. Here's a way our farms can enter into the process of making a difference in Australia. Here's the way an individual farmer working on a small block with a few cattle can make a difference in 15 or 20 years time.' It has been a bottom-up exercise. These are the requirements that have been put before us, and this government and Minister Anderson have responded. Throughout the whole process of Agriculture—Advancing Australia we as a government have delivered for country people. We are doing the things they are asking us to do. I say again: the great benefit is about the environment, it is about people and it is about families and family farms. It is about looking after those people and having them know that we are looking after them, that they are important to us. The family process is going to be paramount in the next few years—making sure that there is an opportunity for those farms in our environment in the years to come.17:35:005054Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—One of the many welcome initiatives in the coalition government's 1998-99 budget is the new tax rebate for expenditure on landcare works right across Australia. I know this initiative has been widely accepted in my electorate of Riverina, which is the home of the most secure and proven irrigation environment in Australia. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the federal government for the natural heritage program, which provided $3 million in funding to my electorate to protect the environment and to try to remedy some of the problems that have developed over the years.It has to be acknowledged that the 1990s have been a period of great activity, stemming from a more informed recognition of the value of natural resources. Dedicated landcare groups and individual farmers have played a significant role in improved resource management and sustainable agriculture. The budget initiative of a tax rebate of 34 cents in the dollar for a wide range of landcare works will be an added boost to this valuable program and will provide an incentive to those farmers, many of them family farmers, as the member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent) said, with low taxable incomes to improve and protect their land—one of our greatest natural resources.The rebate incentive recognises the importance of a rural industry to Australia and the difficult times faced in the bush, particularly because of the drought. It is also one of a number of ongoing benefits being delivered through the government's Natural Heritage Trust, which will finance the $80 million cost of the rebate. The Natural Heritage Trust is delivering huge dividends to all Australians through its objectives: to provide a framework to stimulate strategic investment in the natural environment; to achieve environmental protection, natural resource management and sustainable agricultural outcomes; and to provide a framework for cooperation between the community and all tiers of government.Landcare groups have acknowledged the need to take stock of current practices in land management. As a nation, we have unhesitatingly drawn on natural resources in pursuit of agricultural production, and under the landcare initiative there has been a full appreciation of the consequences in terms of sustainable land use. Landcare's national vision has been to raise the long-term productivity and ecological sustainability of our soil, water and vegetation resources, thereby ensuring a future for our rural industries.Under the government's tax rebate scheme for landcare works, primary producers will be able to claim the rebate for works on levy or contour banks to control soil erosion; drainage works to control salinity; the eradication of pests; and works such as fencing to exclude animals from an area affected by land degradation. There will be an annual limit of $5,000 for eligible landcare expenditures, and the rebate will be available for those farmers with taxable incomes of up to $20,700 from primary production. Because of the financial difficulties facing rural industries, up to 70 per cent of farmers will be eligible to claim the rebate. These are the farmers who, because of their low incomes, are most in need of assistance to invest in required landcare works.One of the most critical areas of concern is salinity from the rising water table, and farmers will welcome the tax rebate for drainage works to combat this problem. While dryland salinity is affecting an alarming area of Australia's farmlands, rising water tables have always been a problem within most of the irrigation areas of which I am aware. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area is no exception, and salinity is endangering the MIA and the CIA, the Coleambally Irrigation Area, in my electorate, as well as the total Murray-Darling basin. While I am mentioning the Coleambally Irrigation Area, I am sure all members would join me in congratulating the citizens of that community, who recently celebrated 30 years since Coleambally's establishment.Turning back to the main theme, CSIRO scientists at Griffith are currently on a mission to combat salinity and are trialling a simple engineering solution aimed at putting new life back into the MIA's ageing irrigation scheme. Some members may have read an article in a recent edition of the Bulletin magazine in relation to this pilot plant. The CSIRO land and water team at Griffith, headed by John Blackwell, believe that their engineering solution, utilising a series of filters, will not only suppress rising salinity but also make more water available for irrigation.According to John Blackwell, the trial, which is in its first year, has already produced encouraging results, and there is a feeling of excitement amongst his scientific team and the local farming community. The interesting thing about this trial scheme, which involves using the soil as a filter, is that the first experimentation was to find a way of treating the sewerage effluent of Griffith to remove sulphates and phosphates. With the support of other agencies, including the Griffith City Council, the CSIRO is conducting a full pilot trial, and a number of Australian local government areas are interested in the project, as is the People's Republic of China.There is some great scientific work being done in the MIA, and the technology being trialled can be adopted on each irrigation farm. One system on trial by the CSIRO involves developing ponds to hold saline drainage water, which eventually evaporates, leaving the salt. Although this means that productive farmland is given over to salt, the upside is that the system increases the amount of water available for an expansion of irrigation crops and production. This has the potential to open up new industries, particularly crops that have a resistance to saltwater.Farming of saltwater fish is in the early stages of experimentation by the CSIRO, and in the last few weeks sea bass fingerlings have been released into a dam close to Griffith. The CSIRO plan envisages enough drainage water to cover 46 hectares of ponds and the estimated annual output of such ponds is 1,000 kilograms of fish per hectare. This is a project that has attracted the support of federal, state and local governments and one that we must all continue to support for the environmental and economic wellbeing of our irrigation areas and the river system as a whole.Since 1 July 1997, the distribution of water within the MIA and CIA has been administered by a corporatised state owned entity known as Murrumbidgee Irrigation under the chairmanship of Dick Thompson of Griffith. A solid business plan and a model to establish this corporation were developed and received widespread support from irrigators and, in particular, their industry peak bodies—the Ricegrowers Association of Australia and the MIA Council of Horticultural Associations.The plan provides that for the first 15 years the state would fund the refurbishment of the irrigation system. Irrigators' contributions to the asset refurbishment during that first 15 years and the product of that investment were to be set aside to ensure the future financial viability of the business so that it could fund its own future asset programs. The business plan also provided that this could be achieved with less than CPI increases in water charges. It took into account that during the program of accelerated asset refurbishment some of the additional charges that have been placed on irrigation for increased maintenance would reduce and continuing productivity gains would be achieved as a result of improved and more efficient practices.As a corporate body, Murrumbidgee Irrigation is subject to federal taxation. I have recently received representations from that organisation, which is responsible for the upkeep and refurbishment of 18,000 structures and 4,000 kilometres of channels and drains, asking that any of the earnings it makes as a corporate entity that are earmarked for refurbishment of the irrigation schemes should be exempt from federal tax. This would seem to be logical to me. I am therefore requesting that the Treasurer (Mr Costello), in implementing the new tax reform package, keep this strongly in mind.The paper prepared by the Prime Minister's Science and Engineering Council in 1996 entitled Managing Australia's Inland Waters stated the following:The common need is for rigorous science to underpin the development and assessment of techniques to address the many issues facing water resource managers at both the policy and operational levels.In the 1996-97 activity report of Murrumbidgee Irrigation, the retiring chairman of the board, Wal Hood, points out the increasing difficulty being faced in protecting irrigators' share of the total Murrumbidgee resource.As the parliament would be aware, an ad hoc cap has been placed by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission which was agreed to by the New South Wales state government on the use of water by irrigators. I do not believe that the cap has any scientific basis at all, contrary to the suggestion of the Prime Minister's council. The cap is an administra tive nightmare since irrigators can no longer be guaranteed an absolute water volume in any one year. The allocation is subject to rainfall and temperature variations so that the actual amount of resource available to irrigators could vary between 1.7 million megalitres and 2.7 million megalitres for the entire valley, even though both dams may be spilling. The dams I am speaking about are the Blowering Dam and the Burrinjuck Dam.On a recent visit to the Burrinjuck Dam I was alarmed to see how low it was. I think it was about 9½ per cent full at the time and well below what it should be at this time of year. I heard previous speakers welcoming the rain that has fallen over the catchment recently, and I just hope that some of that rain may have gotten into both of those dams. If it has not, irrigators and the whole of the community who use water down the system are going to face a very bleak summer indeed.The irrigators' access to off-allocation water will also be restrained. This year a maximum of 440,000 megalitres was set. I understand that the irrigators have expressed a very great concern for the amount of water that may be available to them—whether there is flooding or whatever happens in the ensuing year.A further impediment to irrigators' livelihoods and to their allocation of water will be the new water reforms announced by the New South Wales government, which include a strategy called a `translucent Burrinjuck Dam'. While discussions continue on this strategy, the best information at this time is that inflows to Burrinjuck Dam during the May to September period each year will largely be allowed to flow through the system and presumably to the Southern Ocean.The impact of these strategies could have disastrous effects on the announced allocations because the May to September period is when our dams normally recharge for the following irrigation season. While I am one of those people who believe that we should allow substantial flows for environmental purposes, I do not think that in the long run Australia can waste one drop of water. I ask those people who are allowing this to occur to use scientific bases for any of decisions they make—certainly take care of the environment, but do not waste one drop of water.Early figures indicate that up to a 26 per cent reduction in allocations could result from the translucent Burrinjuck strategy. Of course any significant reduction in the amount of water available to irrigators will automatically mean that the cost per megalitre of providing services to our irrigators will increase because there will be fewer megalitres over which to spread the business overheads. With the amounts that have been announced by the state government, there will be a dramatic impact on the irrigation areas of the Murrumbidgee River and, no doubt, on the Murray irrigation areas. Already, as I read in the local newspapers, very great concerns are being expressed. I hope that the state government, which is being directed by the radical environmental movement, has got its calculations correct because it is going to have a dramatic effect on our communities.If these types of strategies of cap and translucent dams result in significant losses of water to the local community, then it will have the effect of reducing productivity. The flow-on effect will be felt by the entire community because our farm service providers will be providing less by way of inputs and services in catering for a smaller demand. What is occurring is ludicrous, and while it may give the New South Wales state government a warm and fuzzy feeling, engendered by pressure from the Green movement, the whole process is disrespected and flawed because of a lack of scientific discipline and intellectual debate.One of the other issues I would like to raise tonight is that of the ageing irrigation systems in the MIA—no doubt also in the Murray Valley, but I will speak just on the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. That system is now almost 90 years old. Even allowing for the engineering skills of those people who built that system, like many of our infrastructure resources in Australia it is starting to age and we will soon have to spend a great deal of money on it. While the people in the MIA have recently established a corporatised irrigation system, they will not have the money to refurbish that scheme. I think it is one of those projects that could be looked at perhaps under the Federation Fund or under another scheme, because we must rebuild the system and some of the other infrastructure that exists in Australia.I am calling on both the state and federal governments to look at this situation, because the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and the Coleambally Irrigation Area are a source of great productive capacity in New South Wales and one of the food bowls of Australia. It would be a shame to find ourselves in the situation that a scheme which is in need of refurbishment is not cared for. If the scheme is refurbished, we would stop a lot of the leakage and a lot of the saline problems that are occurring as well as providing an increased productive capacity.Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to raise these matters here today. There are many matters that I could speak of here in the parliament in relation to water. One of the sayings that we have in the MIA is that there are more headaches in a barrel of water than there are in a barrel of whisky. From my experience over the 18 years of being in an irrigation area, I can confirm that that is true.I thank the government for the work it has done in introducing this latest program of tax relief for those people who are carrying out landcare programs, who are building levy dams, who are looking after salinity problems, who are putting in strategic investment—all of those people who are doing something to care for the environment and at the same time are increasing our productivity. I look forward to the future when, as time goes by, we will see the results of those programs, the effect of reducing salinity and making sure that the environment, of which we are only the caretakers, is improved for the future of Australia and the future of those coming generations.17:51:005057Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—I rise today to support the Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 . This bill will give farmers a choice between accelerated deductions for Landcare works under subdivisions 387A and 387B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and a tax rebate credit set at the margin al tax rate of 34 cents in the dollar for qualifying expenditure.Assisting Australian farmers to make the investments necessary to repair or sustain the environment is one of the most responsible things that any government can do, and it is the sort of thing that you would expect from a government like ours that represents most of regional Australia. It is responsible in that agriculture and mining laid the foundations of Australia's economic prosperity, and these two great industries today contribute nearly two-thirds of our export earnings.Australia is an ancient landform. It is environmentally fragile and we are still learning what land use systems are most appropriate to regenerate, restore or protect our remaining biodiversity, the waterways and the soils. We have pioneered arid wheat growing in Australia. We built the world's greatest fine wool growing on land that was essentially arid. Our farmers learnt hard, cruel lessons about pushing stocking rates too hard and cultivation too far into country that was climatically unpredictable with some of the poorest levels of soil fertility of any farmland anywhere.Our farmers understand better than farmers anywhere that you have to build up the soils but guard against the consequences of too much phosphate. You have to counter erosion mechanically or by eliminating rabbits and other ferals. You have to harvest the water but in such a way that crops and stock survive while the rivers and streams still flow free. We now understand that environmental flows are as important as water for irrigation. Down our great Murray-Darling Basin system, the new water policy understands and recognises that, as do our farmer irrigators and those supplied in the towns and in the small district centres.Farming is not a business that delivers high rates of return in every season. Some of our poorest income earners, our hardest working poor, are farmers in Australia. Some farmers struggle from one year to the next, trying to manage in an environmentally responsible manner despite downturns in prices, escalating costs and seasons that are unkind. As a Mallee farmer once told me, `I know to the sheep how far I can push my country before it blows.' But farmers do not always have that disposable income every year to invest in the landcare works that they know will help protect their families' farming future; investment they know will help protect the natural resource for Australia—a resource that all Australians need to survive as a society.This bill improves the incentives for farmers to invest in landcare works in the lean times as well as in the better years. Landcare is now recognised as a priority by all developed nations and Australia is leading others with our landcare movement. In fact, landcare is one of those community led programs that is now being picked up and looked at as a model in our neighbouring nations.As our eminent Australian scientist Adrienne Clarke has been reminding us, all of our ecological problems, the diminution of the ozone layer, the rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases, the destruction of forests and the pollution of soils, water and air are due to human activity, and we are now in an exponential population growth phase. The pressure on land from huge population increases in many parts of the world has already led to problems of degradation of existing farmland, the destruction of forests and the pollution or over harvesting of ground and surface water resources. As populations grow, we are more likely to exacerbate these problems. This in turn puts an increasing pressure on the food supply, and there are limited opportunities for opening up more arable land.In my lifetime, 33 per cent of the world's forest has been cut down without replacement. Twenty per cent of the world's topsoil has been blown or washed into the seas. We have lost 16 per cent of arable lands to salinisation and desertification and we have brought 20 per cent of all species of plants, animals, fungi and micro-organisms to the verge of extinction. In our own nation, since 1950 we have lost one-third of our temperate forests and over half of our rainforests. About 50 per cent of our agricultural land is in need of careful watertable management, as it shows the effects of salinity, and much of it is eroded.It took this government to address the urgent need for massive investments in our natural resources, the nation's heritage, which is both our economy and our society's foundation. This government is in the process of injecting $1.25 billion over five years into one of the most comprehensive programs of environmental repair that any nation has embarked upon. The Natural Heritage Trust incorporates landcare, bushcare, rivercare, feral animal control, a national weed strategy and funds for the Murray-Darling Basin.I am particularly sensitive to the needs of the Natural Heritage Trust. I represent the magnificent irrigated Goulburn, Murray and Loddon valleys and some of the dryland country around Central Victoria with its unique ironbark-box forests. In the west of the electorate of Murray are the drier soils of the Mallee country. The electorate of Murray generates over a third of Victoria's food export earnings, yet it is a fragile environment and it can only be sustained with the dedicated work of the men and women who farm with an eye on the next generation reaping much of the rewards.This region was the first in Australia to be publicly irrigated. The nation builders last century took note of the fertile soils, the months of sunshine and the flat treeless plains stretching from horizon to horizon. All the ingredients were there for thriving farming, except a reliable water supply. So in 1886 the sod was turned to celebrate the first public irrigation system in Australia. Over a century later, the pioneers' vision has become reality. There is world competitive dairy production and manufacturing, cattle growing, wool production, sheep meat, pig and poultry production and fruit and vegetable production and that creates work for thousands in the regional cities and towns and wealth for the nation.But along the way those rural communities saw their enterprise threatened with rising watertables, tree decline and soil salinisation. In a massive community effort strongly supported by public funding from the state and federal governments, the Goulburn-Murray-Loddon region developed strategies to manage those watertables. Community drains were built and over the years trees were re- established and grown on farms that had been naturally treeless. Often it was the women who experimented with the tree varieties in the early 1970s, when salt tolerant species were still not widely available or easily identified.I want to pay special tribute to my mother, who planted thousands of trees by hand along the fence lines year after year over 20 years. In the dry years or the very wet years, she would see fewer than a handful survive but she never lost heart. Today, if you drive out the road to the farm, you travel through a tunnel of sheoaks, eucalypts and melaleucas, many of them now self-generating. My brother carries on the commitment, with special plantings to support a greater diversity of native bird life.Some 10 days ago I had the privilege of helping to celebrate the award of the Hanslow Cup to the Witten family at Tatura. This award was in recognition of the outstanding environmental work they had done on their property bordering natural drainage lines that had left them vulnerable to high watertables and waterlogging. Over decades Barbara Witten, the matriarch of the family, grew mixed plantations of local tree species, and the wetland was rehabilitated. The area has become more productive and more biologically diverse—a superb memorial to the work of one woman who tragically died before she saw the plantations reach their full maturity.I met with the Wittens and the local landcare group under a dense canopy of trees and together we reflected on the need for such vision and commitment if this part of the Murray-Darling basin is to continue to be the food bowl of Australia. I have no doubt that that commitment is there. The bill we are discussing now is the sort of government commitment that helps those families understand that we are serious about the work that they do and that we will do everything we can to assist.The farmers in the Murray electorate will derive substantial benefit from the landcare rebate, which is to be funded with $80 million as part of the Natural Heritage Trust funding. The government's aim in implementing the landcare and water conserving and conveying facility rebate is to assist low income farmers, in particular, who are most in need of such assistance. Taxpayers with taxable incomes of up to $20,700 per year will have the alternative of claiming a tax rebate in relation to eligible expenditure incurred from the start of 1997-98. There will be a maximum rebate of $1,700 based on expenditure of $5,000 for spending in a particular year that would otherwise be tax deductible under each of the subdivisions 387A and 387B. Therefore, rebates can be claimed for up to $10,000 of eligible expenditure in any year if there is expenditure of $5,000 under each subdivision.In the case of landcare expenditure, the rebate is claimable in the year of expenditure. The rebate for water conservation and conveyance work is claimable equally over three years, beginning in the year of expenditure. Where farmer taxpayers have insufficient tax liability to absorb that rebate, they will be able to carry the unused portion forward.This bill recognises the environmental significance of sensible water related policy as well as the important widespread contribution irrigation makes to the economy generally and in particular to export earnings, regional economies, property values and community viability.Of course, there are also the huge areas in Australia which depend on rainfall and ground water. A significant amount of surface and bore water is used for agriculture in Australia's rangelands. These rangelands support about 20 per cent of Australia's livestock in around 4,000 pastoral enterprises. In 1992-93, the gross value of meat and wool sold from rangelands was almost $1 billion and nearly half of that was exported. Farming enterprises also provided significant inputs to land management, local infrastructure and employment. It is important to recognise that Australian rangelands are a resource with multiple uses, including not only agriculture but also mining, tourism, conservation, defence and space telecommunications. For example, the gross value of tourism in the rangelands in 1992-93 was estimated at $3 billion, and that for mining, $10 billion. Aboriginal communities currently hold substantial properties in the rangelands of Australia, estimated to be about 38 per cent of the Northern Territory, more than 15 per cent of South Australia and more than nine per cent of Western Australia. The existence of well-managed, good water supplies properly harvested and conveyed on their properties is crucial to the continued viability of all those activities that I have just described.There is enormous investment in Australia in bores, dams and pipes. All of that infrastructure costs money to install and to keep going year after year. As with irrigated pasture, the value of these resources is factored into the lessee's or owner's value of the properties. These new tax rebate incentives will assist not only the irrigated agriculturalists in Australia but also all those pastoralists who work on the great rangelands of Australia.Without a doubt Australia is a nation that has to work very hard to maintain its natural resource base. Our government understands the significance of public expenditure to support the work of the individuals who happen to own or lease the large tracts of Australia from whence we derive our agricultural production. Our government has decided that it will do more than simply pay lip-service year after year to the needs of the people in the bush.I have had a great deal of very positive feedback in the last few weeks since we moved the new farmer retirement assistance program bill through the House of Representatives. This program understands that the intergenerational transfer of family farms is crucial not only for the economic viability of properties but also for the environmental sustainability of agriculture in this country. I am appalled to think that that bill might be held up in the Senate because there is some nit-picking and trivial points to be made about such issues as, for example, having the old farm dog kept out of the calculation of the assets test when estimating whether the older farmer is eligible for this special package.The Democrats, in their consideration of the bill in the Senate committee are well mean ing, but this farmer retirement assistance program is urgently needed. It is part of our ongoing commitment in Australia to ensuring that farmers as business people can survive and carry out that very important work of intergenerational environmental management.The Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 has no downsides. It is a bill that will deliver to low income farmers, in particular, an incentive to carry out landcare work that they understand needs to be undertaken but often do not have the dollars in their pockets to invest in year after year. It is a bill that I believe should pass swiftly through this House and through the Senate so that it can be implemented with the greatest of speed. I strongly commend this bill to the House.18:07:005061Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 before the House this evening is a bill in which my electorate has a particular interest and in which I have a personal interest. Lest the shadow minister at the table, the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis), think I should declare a particular interest, I hasten to add that I do not have a direct financial interest, but by the nature of the electorate of Wakefield and its dependence on the Murray and the catchment that the Murray-Darling gets throughout northern New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, I have a particular interest from an electorate perspective. As the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) said, this bill allows the parliament to pass legislation that will allow an offset of 34 cents in the dollar to be financed over four years from $80 million in the Natural Heritage Trust fund. This bill allows there to be recognition of the costs incurred by landowners in various forms of landcare. There would not be a person in this parliament on either side who does not unreservedly endorse the landcare program. Even those opposite, while sometimes tempted to be a little churlish about the Natural Heritage Trust program, would have to agree that its program, being used as a springboard to fund this, plays a key role in improving the environment. The success of that environmental change is largely the result of the work being done by small groups and individual landowners right across the nation. There are people in LAP programs and various community groups who have come together, financed by the government in one form or another, and who are making a real contribution to environmental improvement across the nation.I am aware—I will briefly touch on this—of some controversy about the way in which NHT funding has been allocated. Given the fact that almost all the NHT funding applies to some form of landcare, and given that almost all the NHT funding impinges one way or another on environmental projects, it is almost inevitable that the majority of that money will go into rural and regional electorates. The financing that we are looking at in this bill today is financing that allows individual landowners to get on with their own form of landcare. As I said, it is financing that will be supported out of the NHT program.I note that the state of Queensland of the parliamentary secretary at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mrs Sullivan), has a real impact on what happens to the Murray-Darling catchment. Some of the landcare improvement that will occur throughout Queensland and some of the landcare changes that will occur throughout northern New South Wales will largely be the result of the encouragement that we give to individual landowners in those states to go about environmentally sensitive projects.It has to be stressed—I make this point as a South Australian concerned about this bill—that the standard of water that arrives in South Australia down the Murray River is largely dictated by the way in which individual landowners across the Murray-Darling Basin catchment area go about implementing land reclamation and landcare programs. Those land reclamation and landcare programs will be financed out of the budget of the NHT, and they will be facilitated by the bill currently before the House.When I rose, I spoke of a particular individual interest that I have in this proposal. It is the result of my being here representing the electorate in South Australia that is the most influenced by the Murray River. As we speak, the Murray River is little more than a series of lakes. That is no fault of the government or any previous decision taken by the opposition. It means that the South Australian people have available to them a water resource that is scarcely meeting their demand. Unless there is sufficient quality water coming down the Murray and being collected in the Murray-Darling catchment area—I emphasise that it be sufficient quality water—we cannot upgrade that series of lakes and reach the point at which the quality of water available to South Australians matches what every other Australian would expect.This bill allows individual land-holders in that catchment area to improve their land management, so improve the water run-off and so improve the quality of water that flows into South Australia. I have said that currently South Australians are apprehensive about the long-term quality of water available to them. That apprehension is solely the result of our being in a situation where at least three years of low rainfall, particularly in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria, has meant that the catchments of the Hume and Dartmouth dams are low. Lake Victoria, which is part of South Australia's catchment area, has also been run down.Currently, there is too little water available for the demands being made on the Murray-Darling Basin system. This bill will not change that. Only an act of God can change that situation. We hope that the rains arrive sooner rather than later. We trust that it will be this winter. What has happened in Canberra in the last week is at least a sign that things may have turned. This bill ensures that, whenever those rains arrive, the water flowing off paddocks and into the river system will be the sort of water that will effectively flush the river.We are endeavouring with this program to ensure that farmers across Australia—from my point of view, particularly those in the catchment area—can so implement their own environmental strategies that water running off their farms will be of a better quality than it has been in the past. That is why the government has taken this initiative. The government first proposed the NHT arrangements so that rural initiatives such as this one could be funded without impacting unfairly on Treasury arrangements. That is why I am proud to be associated with the bill currently before the House.As I said in my introductory remarks, the bill provides effectively a tax offset that is available for landcare expenditure and for the conserving and conveying of water. When I first came into this parliament 15 years ago, there was in place an accelerated depreciation scheme for the conserving and conveying of water. It did a great deal to ensure not only that people used water wisely but also that irrigators moved away from the flood irrigation which has done so much damage to the Murray-Darling Basin catchment area into drip irrigation and low throw sprinkler irrigation. This meant that each crop being irrigated only received the quantity of water it needed. Those changes in irrigation techniques were largely funded out of an accelerated tax depreciation scheme. That scheme encouraged a great deal of improvement in the way in which irrigation water was applied.This scheme is broader than that. It allows farmers to go about various forms of water conveyancing and water conservation and to receive a deliberate tax offset to encourage them to do so. The bill improves the opportunity for every Australian to enjoy better quality water. Given that after the Antarctic we happen to be the driest continent in the world, and given that I am a representative of the driest state in that almost driest continent in the world, I have a particular interest in this bill. I am pleased to commend it to the House.18:15:005062Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—in reply—In summing up the Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 , I firstly thank those members of the House who have made a contribution to this very important bill. The passage of this legislation will provide a substantial incentive for land-holders to invest in landcare works in two main areas: first, works which will prevent and treat land degradation and, second, those which conserve and convey water—two areas of landcare which are very important to our farming community in Australia.These works are crucial to repair and rehabilitate Australia's natural resource base and to ensure the long-term sustainability of agriculture in our nation. The rebate is focused on providing assistance to low income farmers who have less of a financial incentive to invest in such works than do those on higher incomes. For this reason, there are eligibility limits on taxable income—that is, $20,700 per taxpayer—and the level of annual expenditure that can be claimed is $5,000 in relation to each area of the investment. Within these limits, the rebate will still be available to around 70 per cent of producers in Australia—a significant number. It should also be noted that the other producers who do not qualify for the rebate will continue to be able to claim existing tax deductions under subdivisions 387A and 387B of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Those taxpayers who do not have a sufficient tax liability in a year to use the whole of the rebate will be able to carry the unused portion forward to future years when they may have sufficient tax liability. That will also be of great benefit to the primary producers.This legislation will provide the financial incentive to land-holders to undertake on-ground works—that is, practical works to address land degradation out there on the farm. But it does more than that. The legislation is also recognition of the efforts of those Australians who are involved in the more than 4,000 landcare groups across Australia. This action will help to reinforce landcare activities as an important and regular part of farm management—even in low income years—and continue the cultural change to sustainable natural resource management that the landcare movement has worked so hard to achieve.The member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) has said that funding the landcare rebate from the Natural Heritage Trust is a shift from the original purpose of using the funds from Telstra to establish the trust. But the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. The member for Denison (Mr Kerr) has gone further and said that it is a `steal from the Natural Heritage Trust'. But the coalition said before the last election that we recognised the need to revitalise the landcare program, that we would increase landcare funding by more than $160 million through the trust and that we would introduce this rebate and allocate a further $80 million to fund the initiative from the trust. The passage of this legislation will deliver on that promise. It will deliver on that commitment that we gave to the people of Australia before the last federal election.In our election policies we clearly identified the fundamental need to integrate the joint interests of environmental protection and sustainable development. The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act clearly identifies two purposes of the trust as: firstly, supporting sustainable agriculture and, secondly, natural resources management. Natural resource management and sustainable agriculture are absolutely crucial to the health of Australia's environment, especially as over 60 per cent of land is privately owned and managed.This Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 is a major step in assisting private land-holders in their moves towards sustainable agriculture. This measure will encourage investment on private land to complement—not replace—the significant grant funding to community groups provided through the Natural Heritage Trust programs. The overall level of investment is totally without precedent in this country.The member for Burke and the member for Denison have also raised concerns that, in order to use the allocated $80 million, land-holders would need to invest an additional $240 million over the four years. In fact, the net cost of the works to land-holders, to use the full $80 million allocation, would be much less than this—about $150 million. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is about sharing the cost of these essential works with land-holders and at the same time providing the incentive to achieve that increased investment. Once again, the spokesmen for the opposition have completely missed the point.Work by ABARE shows that land-holders are already investing in these works but that the level of investment is limited by the low taxable incomes of many farmers. The low taxable incomes can, of course, be low every year and, for some, as is the nature of the primary production sector, be lower in some years and higher in others. Obviously, there will be some low income farmers who will not invest in landcare activities. The real emphasis must be on encouraging those who spend nothing to invest a little, encouraging those who spend a little to invest more and, importantly, encouraging those who spend irregularly to invest in landcare works as part of normal farm business both in good years and in years when their incomes are low. This legislation will provide that encouragement.The rebate is available to each taxpayer. As most farms are run in partnerships, the farm family income may not be quite so bleak as the member for Denison has painted. There is potential for the additional investment, given the right encouragement. An additional investment of $150 million by land-holders across Australia is achievable. The landcare community has already shown a desire to invest in such works, and I am confident, given my knowledge of the farming community in my electorate and across many parts of Australia, that this rebate will return real benefits to Australia's environment and natural resource base—the land, rivers and streams of our great agricultural base in Australia.I am pleased that the member for Burke and the member for Denison have said that they will support the bill, but I remain concerned that they show an obvious lack of understanding of the basics of the government's natural resources management policy. I urge the House to support this legislation. I also urge the Senate to ensure that this bill is passed as a matter of urgency so that land-holders can implement works to improve and protect the health of our greatest natural resource—our land. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5064Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott) read a third time.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills5064r5365064Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:005064Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—It is a great delight to be here this evening to speak on this piece of legislation before the House. The legislation, of course, is the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . This bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to give effect to the government's commitment to remove tariffs on inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment. These amendments were previously tabled in this place as a proposal—proposal No. 3 of 1998.At the outset, may I say that the opposition will not be opposing the legislation, nor moving any amendments, because we believe the legislation contains proposals which are eminently sensible. Probably, at this stage of our political career, it is opportune for us to think about the whole issue of where technology is going and the role that it plays in our society and as a consequence of that, because of changes in technology, the effect that it is going to have from a customs perspective because of the way in which particular goods need to be classified.I am pleased, once again, that the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) is in the chamber tonight. He always is on occasions such as this when his legislation is being debated, and that is to his great credit. He takes an interest, although this is not a contentious piece of legislation by any means. Nevertheless, it is important that the government does show its sincerity and its commitment to the issues that are raised in important bills by having its ministers sit through debates and having them listen to what people have to say.The proposals that we are debating come from the statement `Investing for growth', which was an industry statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on 8 December 1997. It is fair to say that in Australia there was then, and there continues to be, a need for government and for oppositions to espouse, in clear and concise terms, industry policies. We live in a changing world when it comes to industry. Gone can we say—forever, I think—is the reflection that Australia is a secondary industry nation which is dominated by heavy manufacturing. Today we can say that Australia is very much on the threshold of, and is progressing rapidly into, a highly skilled technologically advanced industry policy area and, as a consequence of that, it is a time when governments and oppositions need to consider the policies that they wish to develop in those areas.One of the major factors that led to this policy coming forward was the fact that, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the imports of information technology goods—for example, printed circuit boards, computers and so on—are duty-free, and imports of telecommunications equipment, such as telephone handsets and mobile phones, are dutiable at five per cent. Companies manufacturing IT equipment in Australia face an anomalous tariff situation whereby they pay duties of three or five per cent on imports of their inputs, but have no tariff assistance on their finished goods. In the past, the computer bounty had the effect of redressing this tariff disparity but, with the cessation of the bounty in July 1997, manufacturers have faced a situation of negative assistance.Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember, as will the minister, that the Labor opposition opposed the phasing out of that bounty, the cessation of the bounty. In fact, my colleague the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) has argued long and strenuously in this place about the way in which industry assistance should be applied. I guess to some extent this bill shows a difference of opinion, a difference of approach, between what the government is seeking to do and what perhaps the former Labor government did when looking at these issues.As I was saying, and as has been pointed out in the explanatory memorandum, tariff classification for certain types of goods in these industries is also an issue. In an industry such as this where technology is evolving rapidly, and convergence is occurring, there is contention about the nature of some goods and whether they are classified to items carrying a duty-free rate, or a five per cent rate. As a consequence, it was necessary—and this bill seeks to ensure this—to clearly spell out the classification. This will suit people in industry because it will remove one of the anomalies when trying to determine whether something is dutiable or not. It will now be clearly spelt out through the impact of this legislation. The Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs in his second reading speech said at the time:With the exception of a small range of finished goods, we—the government—will be bringing forward by 18 months the tariff reductions to which Australia is committed under the ITA. A zero duty rate will now apply from 1 July 1998. The goods that will be excluded, and for which 1 January 2000 will remain the operative date for a zero rate, include: line telephone, cordless, mobile and other telephone sets,facsimile and telephone answering machines, digital still image cameras, pagers, antennas and aerial reflectors.In this area of telecommunications where technology is evolving so rapidly and difficulties can emerge in trying to determine whether a piece of equipment falls within one category or another, hopefully some of the concerns will be eliminated.Again, it is quite appropriate that both the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs and his colleague the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay) are at the table, because I know that an episode in their state the weekend before last—I think it was called a state election—caused them some concern, at least if media reports can be believed. One of the issues which seemed to emerge was once again this introspective and insular nature that some people bring to any consideration of industry policy.Both of the ministers at the table recognise that in a country like our own, which cannot be xenophobic, which cannot simply say that our industry policy has to be one that is about sustaining ourselves without any thought to the region around us or to a broader geographic area, that sort of a policy is bound to fail. As a consequence, I think those people in this place and outside that would peddle the idea that foreign investment is not required in this country any further when it comes to industry policy development—whether it be in telecommunications technology or whatever—need to be laughed at. They certainly do not need to be taken seriously.The University of Wollongong, in my local area, has for some time now been recognised as a centre for telecommunications excellence. One of the faculties there has worked tirelessly to develop this reputation in telecommunications technology and all the associated advances in modern communications by hiring experts in their own particular fields. In the Illawarra, we are now trying to build on that reputation and move to the next phase. I am pleased that the minister for regional development is here, because I know that he came to the Illawarra a couple of months ago and attended the annual meeting of IROC where the regional councils would have spoken to him about this specific issue.We are not only trying to move away from simply having the R&D work that the University of Wollongong embraces at the moment but also trying to capture the manufacturing side of this new technology. It is all tied into this legislation because, at the end of the day, we are finding that foreign telecommunications companies are probably going to be more than happy to look at, and hopefully invest in, this sort of manufacturing capacity in regions like the Illawarra. It is certainly not to be discouraged. In fact, it is the reverse: it is to be encouraged for all we possibly can. Unless we get this sort of support, the potential job generation that will come from that investment is simply going to fall by the wayside. And in regions like my own, where unemployment is still unacceptably high, opportunities for moving into the next generation and into the next millennium with the sort of industry that we can have in this country will be lost.As I have said, the opposition does not oppose this bill. We believe that the announcements that were made by the Prime Minister in his industry statement on this specific area were reasonable in the circumstances. But I cannot let the opportunity pass without making a passing reference to this comment that was made in the minister's second reading speech:Australian information technology manufacturers will benefit from duty free access to key inputs which will strengthen the competitive base of Australia's information technology industry. The cost to government is estimated at $80 million over the next 18 months, and this should translate directly to reduced costs for industry and ultimately flow through to lower prices for consumers.I would hope that that is right. Where I am afraid it will not be the case is with any changes that the government may be contemplating to taxation policy and the effect that that may have. At the end of the day, if we are trying to nurture and to expand the telecommunications industry of this nation through looking at dutiable rates and zero rating inputs and giving it every encouragement we possibly can, then the last thing we want is to apply some disincentives along the way. The disincentives we are particularly concerned about would be any of the tax imposts that might come at the various stages in the manufacture process and then what ultimately that would be passed on to the final consumer as in terms of a price. A GST or any similar sort of a proposal would clearly have a negative impact in that sense.I cannot for the life of me see why a government would be willing to assist to eliminate the discrepancies and the way in which people have found it difficult in the past to identify some of these issues associated with classification for duty purposes, and then, having done that and having freed up some of those issues—making it perfectly clear that investing in telecommunications in this country now will hopefully see the flow- on effect of lower prices for consumers—would come along with another policy, which in this case is in the taxation area, that would have a different effect.I think to some extent that says something about the way in which policy is still worked through in Australia. Regrettably, we see policy being advanced in one section of the bureaucracy without reference to the other and, no matter how many interdepartmental committees might be established from time to time, at the end of the day they all do not seem to be able to get it entirely right. I hope that the government, in considering the benefits that would flow to Australia as a result of these customs tariff proposals, is not going to be undermined down the track by any difficulties that might emerge because of changing taxation regimes that might apply.With those comments, I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we have no difficulty with the proposals. I simply point out that we have a difference of approach to industry policy, as a I pointed out earlier, from some of the ways in which this government has decided to deal with matters rather than giving industry assistance in the way it has been given in the past. I do not think they were the rorts that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) described them as. A number of people in business will tell you that a lot of the R&D syndication and concessional taxation approaches that were applied were not rorts but really gave a lot of people a leg up.Telecommunications, which is part of the service industries area of Australia—which is the fastest growing area in our country and the one which is likely to employ more and more people as time goes by—is a clean, green sort of industry. We have to look at removing disincentives and giving continuing encouragement to that industry. Hopefully, the reduction in tariffs, as proposed by the government in this respect, will do that.Fortunately, the government is not being diverted from this course by the views of a minority group within this parliament and, dare I say, within Australia, which cannot see how important it is to have a stable economic and industry policy, how important it is to have foreign investment, and how important it is to have telecommunications industries which are expanding and which are provided with government assistance in a strategic interventionist way which will see that growth continue. We wish this legislation a speedy passage through the House.20:16:005067Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—The issue of tariffs concerns a lot of people. I have my view on them, and I will get onto that a little later. In relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , in the World Trade Organisation ministerial declaration of 26 March 1997 the ministers agreed in Singapore on the expansion of world trade in IT products. It is important that I quote from the Bills Digest notes on the amendment and on this bill so that people reading this speech will understand exactly what is going on. According to the Bills Digest , the key elements of the declaration were based on the following:. considering the key role of trade in IT products in the development of information industries and in the dynamic expansion of the world economy. recognising the goals of raising standards of living and expanding the production of trade and goods. desiring to achieve maximum freedom of world trade in IT products. desiring to encourage the continued technological development of the IT industry on a world-wide basis. being mindful of the positive contribution IT technology makes to global economic growth and welfare.It continues:The Declaration provided that the duty eliminations would occur provided participants representing approximately ninety percent of world trade in IT products agreed to participate. Participants now collectively account for approximately ninety-three percent of world trade in IT products.In general, there are six main categories of products covered:. computers. telecommunications. semiconductors. semiconductor manufacturing equipment. software and. scientific instruments. The Declaration provides for IT tariffs be eliminated in four steps by the year 2000. With the exception of a small range of finished goods, this Bill brings forward, from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 1998, all duty reductions scheduled under the Declaration.The goods which remain on 1 January 2000 reduction schedule include:. line telephones, cordless, mobile and other telephone sets. facsimile and answering machines. digital still image cameras. pagers and. antennas and aerial reflectors.That is a briefing on the bill and on the document itself. It is important that people understand that. On the impact on Australian manufactures, the document says:Currently, most fully assembled IT goods (eg. printed circuit boards, computers) are imported duty free. These goods use inputs such as chemical products, electronic components and other sub-assemblies during the manufacturing process.I thought it was important to also quote that. Further to that, as I was saying earlier, quite a lot of members from different areas have personal views on tariffs. It is important that these views be carried forward in relation to this legislation.I believe that this bill should be underpinned by the statement that, where a country imposes a tariff on Australian imports, Australia must impose tariffs of equivalent value on that country's exports to Australia. I have a query about tariffs. We removed the tariffs on sugar, and that was supposed to be an initiative that was in the long-term interests of the sugar industry, but we baulked on removing tariffs from motor vehicles. We do not manufacture motor vehicles in Australia; we only assemble them. This has made motor vehicles $4,000 to $6,000 dearer for the Australian consumer. I am in a dilemma as to why this formula, which is supposed to be so correct when applied to primary producers, inverses when applied to southern based manufacturers.The man or woman on the land believes that the rate of change is too fast in relation to tariff reductions, as are our attempts to please the World Trade Organisation in relation to global marketing. It is imperative that this government focus on trade for the Australian primary producers as of today. It is a great problem when governments spend all their time trying to govern for tomorrow or govern for the future. It is important that we govern for today. We can see that Australian industry is hurting in country Queensland and regional and rural Australia owing to the fact that certain tariffs or certain products or certain exports and imports are affecting Australian industry.As far as the bill is concerned, information technology is an expanding industry in this country. We have one of the greatest opportunities to be a leader in the world in this technology and in this advancement. I take heed. I hope that industry in Australia continues to invest to expand information technology development in Australia and goes further forward to be not only that but also a leader in the development of information technology.It just so happens that I am doing my masters in business. I did an assignment on this just recently in relation to trade with a company that was selling motherboards to a country overseas in light of the Asian market that has fallen over owing to the problems with the currency over there. It was interesting to be able to relate this legislation to that.I have made quite a few points in relation to this bill. The most important thing from where I stand is that I get my message across in relation to the bill—that is, where a country imposes a tariff on Australian imports to that country then Australia must impose tariffs of equivalent value on that country's exports to Australia. That is absolutely imperative.20:25:005068Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 introduces amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 relating to the import of inputs for the information technology industry. The measures contained in this legislation are part of the government's push to revitalise the Australian economy by encouraging diverse, vibrant and internationally competitive industries. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) announced in last year's Invest ing for Growth statement that the government would be adding important new dimensions to the industry policy framework to assist economic growth. The coalition is confident about the future of Australian industry and recognises that government has a role to play in providing an optimal environment for doing business in this country.I would like to take the opportunity to remind members of the major initiatives of Investing for Growth. It included a $1 billion commitment to increase targeted support for innovation. There was also the establishment of Invest Australia, which will aggressively promote the advantage of Australia as an investment location. While Australia is already a major financial centre in our region, we aim to become a leading world financial centre. Australia is in a good position to achieve this, enjoying an already sophisticated financial sector. There will be a provision for specific incentives to attract strategic investment projects to Australia.There will also be the extension of the export market development scheme with an additional $300 million to continue the program to the year 2001 and 2002. There will also be measures to make Australia a more attractive proposition as a site for international manufacturing and warehousing by removing excessive access and compliance costs. We will introduce new manufacture in bond provisions exempting exporters from custom duties and sales tax on imported goods subsequently re-exported or used as inputs in products extended for re-export.There will also be the introduction of a range of taxation measures to enhance Australia's attractiveness as a financial centre. This includes an enhancement of the concessional tax regime for offshore banking units, widening the interest withholding tax exemption to encourage the domestic corporate debt market and relaxed foreign investment rules. Finally, there will be the adoption of a broad-ranging information industries action agenda to foster the development of information industries.The exciting development in global information technology presents not only great opportunities for Australian industry but also policy challenges for all governments. The coalition has already demonstrated leadership in this area. Since coming to office, we have established the National Office of the Information Economy and Senator Alston has been appointed the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. He is supported in this role by a ministerial council. The government is committed to ensuring that the benefits of the information age are distributed equitably throughout Australia. We will ensure ready access to IT facilities to everyone, particularly to regional and remote Australia.The information industries action agenda will attract investment and encourage competitive advantage at a cost of about $28 million over a four-year period. In order to assist business, we will establish an electronic one-stop shop which will supply information on business regulatory needs on the Internet by the year 2001. The legislation before the House today implements as part of the Investment for Growth package our commitment to the information technology industry.As stated, this bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995. It gives effect to the government's commitment to remove tariffs on inputs to the manufacture of equipment for the information technology industry. The bill covers the changes tabled in the House on 14 May 1998 in the Customs Tariff Proposal No. 3 (1998).Australia is a signatory to the international information technology agreement, ITA, signed in Singapore in 1996. The ITA will see the phase-out of duty on information technology and telecommunications goods covered by the agreement by 1 January 2000. The Prime Minister consulted with Australian component suppliers in order to assess the impact of removing tariffs on information technology equipment. The reservations expressed by manufacturers have been accommodated.The amendments in this bill bring forward to 1 July 1998 the phase-out of the rate of duty to zero on all goods covered by the ITA. The categories of goods covered by the ITA include computers, telecommunications, semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, software and scientific instruments. The exceptions to this agreement are certain complete goods such as line telephones; cordless, mobile and other telephone sets; facsimile and telephone answering machines; digital still image cameras; pagers; and antennas and aerial reflectors.Most fully assembled IT goods like computers are already imported duty free. These products use inputs like chemical products and electronic components during manufacture. The inputs are a vital part of the manufacturing process and are goods that are used or consumed in the manufacture of information industries equipment. Inputs may also include certain capital equipment utilised in the manufacturing process. As the Australian component industry is small, most inputs are imported; therefore, equivalent Australian made products using the same inputs attract a tariff of either three or five per cent. This results in Australian IT manufacturers having to pass on the costs of these duties to consumers.The other anomaly facing IT businesses is that goods classified as information technology equipment are duty free while goods classified as telecommunications equipment carry a five per cent duty. The government is taking action on two fronts: firstly, the acceleration of the removal of the duty under the ITA and, secondly, the establishment of a schedule 4 item in the customs tariff for those items not covered by the ITA. Naturally, if the ITA is expanded over time, the listing of tariff items will be amended. The new schedule 4 item will allow duty free entry for inputs currently subject to a tariff concession order or TCO. The new item will cover inputs in the manufacture of information technology equipment and will be defined in the by-laws of the new schedule of item 4.There are also a number of technical amendments in the bill which will simplify the tariff structure by amalgamating certain subheadings. The classification issue has been resolved by reducing the duty on goods considered contentious at the time of the Prime Minister's announcement to an amount determined as free. The removal of duty will save IT manufacturers an estimated $52 million in 1998-99 and $28 million in 1999-2000 in input costs. Businesses and personal consumers and users of the information industry equipment will benefit from cheaper products from domestic manufacturers and a greater price competition in the market. The measures included in this legislation, in tandem with other initiatives contained in the `Investment for growth' statement, will provide the environment for a competitive and sophisticated information technology industry for Australia.This government has worked hard to ensure that businesses in this country get a fair go. Since coming to government, we have paid off Labor's debt, reduced red tape for small business, overhauled Labor's antiquated and crippling industrial relations laws and brought government spending under control. These measures, and our promise to reform the taxation system, put in place an environment conducive to doing business in this country. Our policies have turned the Australian economy around. Under Labor, the underlying inflation rate averaged 5.5 per cent; it is now 1.5 per cent—the lowest rate since 1972. And who could forget bank interest rates of 18 per cent under Labor? They are now at an average of around 6.7 per cent—the lowest since March 1970. The current account deficit averaged 4.8 per cent of gross domestic product over 1983-84 to 1995-96 under Labor, while it was 3.5 per cent in 1996-97 under the coalition government.Under Labor, general government net debt was just under 20 per cent of GDP in 1995-96; it will be brought down to 10 per cent by this government by the year 2000-01. The restoration of our economy will encourage business investment, which will create jobs and wealth for Australian families. We also understand the need to ensure that emerging information technologies are given the opportunity to enhance our industry sector. This bill is one part of that recognition.This government's policy is to allow business to maximise the benefits of the information age. We will do this by encouraging business confidence in the information economy, employing a light-touch regulatory framework, establishing the Commonwealth as a leading-edge user, improving our information industries base and facilitating access to the information age for disadvantaged users. This legislation will allow Australian information technology manufacturers access to duty free inputs for their products. This will expand and strengthen the competitive base of our information technology industry, leading to lower prices for consumers.On another note, in 1986 the Northern Territory established one of Australia's first free trade zones. The free trade zone struggled for a number years, but at the moment I believe it is going quite well. If the government of the day had put in place legislation of this nature, as we are discussing today, in terms of inputs not just for technology but for many other areas where we were very light on in manufacturing and we had been able to bring that into the Northern Territory Trade Development Zone, I believe that we would have had today a very exciting prospect in the Northern Territory in that free trade zone. As I said a few moments ago, the zone itself is now functioning at a very high level of commitment to those people who are working in the zone.The Northern Territory government had to really go it alone to provide initiatives and encouragement to those persons wishing to establish themselves in the trade development zone, which basically meant bringing articles from overseas into the zone and reassembling them and then re-exporting them to other countries. If the inputs tariffs had been made available then, I believe that the Northern Territory Trade Development Zone would certainly have been an icon for Australian industry. We are doing it now in 1998. We are not late, because information technology has been growing rapidly.For example, an Australian company wanted to set up infrastructure for wiring switches. It was easier for it to import the component from an overseas destination to Australia, assemble it with Australian components and re-export it onto the international market. It did that with a great deal of difficulty and eventually failed because of the high import cost of the components. Had it been able to import those particular components with the same tax regime as we are indicating for information technology, then I think it may have been a different set of circumstances. It would have been able to import the components, use Australian labour, use other Australian components, put an `Australian made' stamp on it and export it to Germany or the United States or Asia.I think this legislation is timely in view of the fact that people can now take advantage of it and will not have to set up special infrastructure in trade development zones. They can set up anywhere they like—Wollongong, Newcastle, Darwin or Alice Springs. The fact is that they are now able to import those components which will not attract a duty.The amendments contained in the bill, as explained on page 6 of the explanatory memorandum, are very important. The bill, which comes into effect on 1 July 1998, will bring forward the phase-out of the rate of duty to zero on all goods covered by the ITA, with the exception of certain complete goods such as line telephones, cordless, mobile and other telephone sets and facsimile and telephone answering machines. The existing tariff phasing arrangements of those goods will remain unchanged.The bill also contains a number of technical amendments to simplify the tariff structure by amalgamating certain subheadings which will be free from 1 July 1998. For example, as the rate of duty for subheading 8517.50.90—I wish the minister had given us more information on that by telling us what that was without us having to look it up—is being reduced to free and subheading 8517.50.10 is already free, the two subheadings are combined into a new subheading of 8517.50.00.On reflection and on examining it, it sounds like a lot of gobbledegook. If these items had been listed in the schedule as (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) and the other items listed in the schedule as (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) and (m), and we now have amalgamated them to be (a) to (m), then I think we may have understood that better. I am quite sure that, with the experts and their books and high volumes of technical references to items in that free list, it is certainly going to be very interesting.Another technical amendment involves the removal of references to `Part II' of the act from six schedule 4 items—which I spoke about in my speech on the second reading—namely, 20A, 20B, 41A, 41B, 54 and 61, and replacing them with `Part 2' to accord with the current divisions in the legislation. This will be picked up in amendment 71 of the schedule to the bill. The change has no duty or revenue implications.Further, a concessional item (No. 65) in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 has been created to allow the duty free importation of certain other inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment which were not covered by the ITA. This is picked up by amendment 74 of the schedule to the bill. I do not think it will be long before the minister comes back to us to say that it has worked for information technology so there is no reason why we cannot bring it to other components within the manufacturing industry; it might be the motor car industry or any other industry where we import.It was very pleasing to hear the other day that a leather company in Queensland has won a contract to provide something like $300 million worth of leather goods to the United States car manufacturers. So we certainly do have the capacity to create an interest in what we do in Australia. If half the manufacturers were given the opportunity to import from a more sophisticated origin and amalgamate with Australian components, with Australian know-how, with Australian technology, then I am quite sure that our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) would be very happy because we would be conquering all fields.Finally, the concession will operate through the Customs by-laws which will be gazetted in the Commonwealth Gazette. I think that is a very important component, because it will allow the minister, by regulation, to change it if there is a threat to, say, job creation in Australia. I think that is very important. It gives the minister an opportunity to change it by regulation, rather than by bringing it back to the House and trying to change it where the opposition goes hot and cold and it might not be able to proceed. I think the minister should be complimented on the regulatory process.Those inputs eligible for the new concession will be covered by either a commercial tariff concession order or a tariff concession order and listed in a by-law. Those TCOs would attract a rate of duty of three per cent but for the new items. I believe that will give those persons the opportunity of evaluating what it will cost them and where they will import the inputs from that they need to assemble an Australian component for export. (Time expired)20:45:005072Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—in reply—I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas), the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Marek) and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) for their contributions to this debate. I particularly commend the member for the Northern Territory on his detailed understanding of the legislation, his assessment of the individual sections of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 and the way in which they interact to achieve the purpose of the legislation. I also thank the honourable member for Cunningham for his contribution and his indication that the opposition will not be opposing this bill.Mr Deputy Speaker, this is really important legislation and perhaps it is a bit disappointing, at a time when the House does have a little spare time available to it, that there were not more speakers on this legislation, because it is a bill about the future—about information technology. The rapid change that is occurring in our society is, in many ways, being led by information technology. If there are still people around who believe that Australia can somehow or other build a wall around our borders and keep ourselves away from the world, information technology and the advancements in this area are absolutely the death knell to that kind of theory. This bill will certainly put Australia at the forefront of information technology. It will provide the potential for significant employment opportunities in this country in this very important industry, and it will give our industry a chance to provide leadership around the world.I certainly commend the bill to the House and appreciate the fact that it has received such general support. The bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to give effect to the government's commit ment to remove tariffs on inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment. These amendments were previously tabled in the House as Customs Tariff Proposal No. 3 (1998).Tariffs, as explained by the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the honourable member for Cunningham, do place a cost burden on other industries. I think that tariffs are not widely understood in the Australian community. There is still a perception on many street corners that somehow or other tariffs are still good for Australian industry and the reduction in tariffs has been responsible for job losses in this country. The reality is that sometimes a loss of protection can mean that some industries have difficulty competing in the future. However, if we provide protection to one industry, it increases the costs to others and frequently the jobs that may be saved in one industry are jobs that are lost in other places. Too often, when we leave tariffs in place longer than they ought to be, we are protecting yesterday's jobs in a sunset industry and denying ourselves the opportunity to expand substantially into areas where there is enormous potential for growth to provide long-term, permanent, productive jobs into the future. So any tariffs that remain need to be examined carefully to ensure that they are fulfilling a useful function and that they are not, indeed, a hindrance to other Australian industries.Not only are tariffs not well understood, I suspect, by many people in the streets, but also I sometimes wonder how well they are understood even by some people in industry. The way in which our tariff concession order system works and the way in which by-law entry can be available is sometimes not understood even by major operators in industry. In this portfolio I am often surprised at the efforts that industry goes to in some instances to seek a concession that is not available and is not intended to be available in the spirit of the legislation. In other cases, when great effort is devoted to gaining a benefit of a reduction of five per cent to, say, three per cent in a tariff, you sometimes wonder whether the expenditure that is put into gaining that concession is indeed worth the effort.Whilst I acknowledge that tariff law is complex and that it is an area where some specialist expertise is required to grasp a full understanding, sometimes industry perhaps does not try as hard as it could to understand what is available or to seek the expert advice that is necessary to help it gain concessions when they are available or indeed not to bother with the effort where that is not likely to be productive.This particular piece of legislation follows on from the `Investing for growth' industry statement of 8 December last year when the government announced that it would remove tariffs on inputs to the manufacture of information industry equipment. This is a major new growth industry for the world, and it is important that Australia be a part of that growth. The tariffs that have been in place have been a potential hindrance to Australia being at the forefront of the new jobs and the new industries that can be created in this important new field, so when these tariffs are removed it certainly gives our industry a much more competitive regime in which to operate.The `Investing for growth' statement also said that, whenever there are doubts about classifications of information technology equipment, the lowest tariff rate will be applied. This bill takes action to address those matters. The issues with tariffs on inputs is actually one of negative assistance; it is a cost to the industry. Most fully assembled information industry equipment is imported duty free. However, many of the chemical products, mechanical parts, electronic components and subassemblies that are used in the local production of the same equipment attract either a three per cent or a five per cent tariff. So it was really an extraordinary situation where if you brought the completed item into Australia it came in duty free, but if you brought the parts in and manufactured it in this country or assembled it in this country the items were subject to three per cent and five per cent tariffs. This negative assistance in an industry which is highly competitive and where margins are often small was obviously significantly deleterious to our industry.There has also been an issue within the industry whereby goods classified as information technology equipment are duty-free, but goods classified as telecommunications equipment carry a duty of five per cent. This duty differential means that there has been an incentive for importers to seek to have goods classified to an information technology item rather than a telecommunications item. This again gives rise to the matters I was referring to earlier, where there is often a great deal of effort devoted by industry to having a particular import classified in such a way as to get the maximum tariff benefit or concession. This is an area which was obviously rife for dispute, where very similar pieces of equipment—perhaps identical pieces of equipment—could be classified as either an information technology item, and therefore be liable for duty, or a telecommunications item, and therefore come in without that duty.Following consultation with industry, the government is taking action on two fronts. The central element is an acceleration of duty reductions already scheduled under the information technology agreement, the ITA. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Capricornia, Australia, along with 42 other countries, is a signatory to the ITA which covers 93 per cent of world trade in information technology products. This agreement produced a list of goods in the information technology industries on which tariffs are being phased to zero on 1 January 2000.With the exception of a small range of finished goods, the government is therefore bringing forward by 18 months the tariff reductions to which Australia is committed under the ITA. A zero rate will now apply from 1 July 1998. As honourable members have mentioned, the goods that will be excluded, and for which 1 January 2000 will remain the operative date for a zero rate, include line telephone, cordless, mobile and other telephone sets, facsimile and telephone answering machines, digital still image cameras, pagers, antennas and aerial reflectors. The tariff on these items will also be reduced in accordance with the ITA, but the operative date for the zero rate for these items will be 1 January 2000.The second element of the approach is the establishment of a new schedule 4 item in the customs tariff for those inputs not covered by the ITA. This will allow duty-free entry for other inputs which are currently subject to a tariff concession order. The new item will cover inputs to the manufacture of information industries equipment. Information industries equipment will be defined in terms of a series of tariff items within the ITA. If the ITA coverage expands over time as a result of ongoing international discussions, this listing of tariff items will be altered appropriately. Those were the issues in the explanatory memorandum to which the honourable member for the Northern Territory was referring.Inputs to manufacture are goods that are an integral part of the manufacturing process for this equipment and include goods that are incorporated into the equipment or consumed during the manufacture of the equipment as well as capital equipment utilised in the manufacturing process. In consultation with industry, an initial list of TCOs covering relevant inputs has been developed. The coverage for the new schedule will be expanded as new TCOs are established for other inputs to information industry equipment manufacture.Australian information technology manufacturers will benefit from duty-free access to key inputs which will strengthen the competitive base of Australia's information technology industry. The cost of these measures to government is estimated at $80 million over the next 18 months, but this should translate directly to reduced costs for industry and ultimately flow through to lower prices for consumers. There is a challenge now being offered by the government to industry. As a government, we have been prepared to forgo $80 million which will directly reduce industry's cost. This gives the industry an internationally competitive environment in which to prosper. They have at their disposal a rapidly developing market. They have at their disposal a limitless imagination to develop new products and be at the forefront of advancing information technology industries around the world. The government through this legislation is clearly demonstrating our support for the industry and our desire to see Australia as a lead player in information technology.There are some consumers, particularly elderly consumers, who fear the advances of this modern technology. Many would prefer the world to go backwards, to the days when we lived in a quieter and more peaceful era and to the days when the images from the rest of the world and the information assembled and generated in other parts of the world was locked outside of our shores. That is an unrealistic position and one which I think as a nation we need to also address.There are certainly valid reasons why many people, particularly those who left school in the pre-computer age, feel unfamiliar with the technology. One of the initiatives that the consumer affairs portfolio will be undertaking in the next 12 months, and for which funding was provided in the last budget, is to do more work in encouraging consumers and better informing consumers about information technology and how they can use the new technology to their own benefit. I think it is important that we all start to feel more comfortable with this age, feel relaxed about using the equipment and feel as confident in taking advantage of the available technology as do children in grades 3, 4 or 5 in schools. In a sense, sometimes those who are 20, 30 or 40 years younger than us are better able to use this technology than the older generation.Those are barriers that can be broken down and should be broken down. As Australia embraces information technology as we assert our leadership role, many more opportunities will arise in the future. Australia's position in the context of the ITA will also be enhanced as a result of this legislation, at a time when some countries are calling for accelerated action on trade liberalisation. This is an area where trade liberalisation is being pushed forward at a rapid rate in order to meet the demands of the industry. With this legislation the government is challenging the industry to take advantage of the opportunities that are available. We are indicating our willingness to back it through the elimination of these tariff barriers, which have added to industry costs over the years. The legislation opens up a new window of opportunity for Australian industry—the potential to create many more jobs in a sunrise industry. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5075Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Truss) read a third time.Bills5075s158Consideration resumed from 14 April.507521:02:005075Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends sections 3B and 15A of the Crimes Act 1914. State and territory fine enforcement laws are applied to federal offenders by section 15A of the Crimes Act 1914. In recent years, a number of states have enacted new fine enforcement procedures that may not be covered by section 15A. It has therefore become necessary to update the wording of section 15A.The New South Wales Fines Act 1996 provides a good example of the diversity of fine enforcement mechanisms that are increasingly becoming available under state and territory law. The Fines Act 1996 lays down a sequence of steps for the enforcement of a fine imposed by a New South Wales court, that a person has failed to pay. After warnings have been given, a person's driver's licence is to be suspended and then cancelled. A person's vehicle registration may also be cancelled. If these measures are unavailable or ineffective, civil enforcement action such as the seizure of property or the garnishment of wages may be instituted. If the fine remains unpaid, community service may ordered. Imprisonment is then the option of last resort for non-compliance with a community service order.The wording of the existing section 15A of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 does not make it clear that state and territory laws providing for licence or registration cancellation, or civil enforcement action, apply to federal offenders. Without the amendments proposed by this bill, states and territories could be uncertain as to the fine enforcement procedures available in respect of federal offenders. The amendments to section 15A will ensure that states and territories can employ the procedures used in the enforcement of fines against state or territory offenders, in enforcing fines against federal offenders.The requirements of the Commonwealth constitution do, however, necessitate special rules for federal offenders in one respect. Some state and territory laws allow serious penalties, such as community service orders and imprisonment, to be imposed for fine default on the order of a justice of the peace or an administrative agency. Under the separation of powers requirements of the Commonwealth constitution, such orders may only be made in respect of a federal offender by a court exercising federal judicial power. Under the amended section 15A, there will be a special procedure under which a magistrate is to make such orders in the case of a federal offender. Those orders will then feed back into the normal state or territory enforcement system.The amendments to section 3B of the Crimes Act 1914 proposed in this bill will ensure that administrative arrangements, made between the Commonwealth and each state and territory under section 3B, are capable of extending to new enforcement procedures. Existing arrangements will continue in force.In summary, this bill is designed to ensure that the full range of state and territory fine enforcement procedures are available in respect of federal offenders. This will maximise the likelihood that a fine is actually paid, rather than being `cut out' by the imprisonment of a fine defaulter, at the taxpayer's expense. The financial impact of the amendments is not quantifiable. The amendments will not require additional funding, but will facilitate the use of more efficient fine enforcement procedures.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.21:07:005076Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I propose to speak only briefly in relation to the Crimes Amendment (Enforcement of Fines) Bill 1998 . The explanatory memorandum contains the general outline of the bill, and for brevity I propose to read that general outline because it basically gives the summary of the bill. It says:This Bill amends sections 3B and 15A of the Crimes Act 1914 . The main purposes of the amendments are:(i) to apply new and anticipated fine enforcement procedures under State and Territory law to federal offenders;(ii) to ensure that fine enforcement procedures of a judicial nature (eg, ordering imprisonment) are only performed by judicial officers in relation to federal offenders; and(iii) to ensure that arrangements between the Commonwealth and each State and Territory covering the performance of fine enforcement functions by officers of the States and Territories, can extend to new and evolving fine enforcement procedures.The measures contained in this bill are clearly non-controversial and will enhance the options available to the Commonwealth to enforce fines. Accordingly, the opposition supports this bill.21:09:005076Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—That would have to be a record speech by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham) in so far as he normally uses the full 20 or 30 minutes allotted to him. Perhaps he is turning over a new leaf.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—The Gettysburg address took only three minutes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I thought it was basically your last hurrah. The government clearly supports the Crimes Amendment (Enforcement of Fines) Bill 1998 as it is a government bill and we are pleased to accept the backing of the opposition. When the honourable member for Banks read the explanatory memorandum, he pointed out that the bill amends sections 3B and 15A of the Crimes Act 1914.There are a number of positives with respect to this bill. It is designed to ensure that the full range of state and territory fine enforcement procedures are made available for federal offenders. It will maximise the likelihood that the fine is actually paid rather than cut out by the imprisonment of a fine defaulter at the taxpayers' expense. It indicates that the government is serious about encouraging people to pay fines rather than have the community incur the very substantial expense of a custodial sentence.The amendments will not impact on government expenditure or revenue in any measurable respect. They will not require additional funding. They will facilitate the use of more efficient fine enforcement procedures and, by encouraging people to pay their fines, it could well be that at the end of the day the level of expenditure by government will be reduced in that people will not be put in custody.This is a piece of law that we are very keen to see enacted on the statute books of Australia. As I said, this bill amends two sections of the Crimes Act. It is non-controversial legislation, and it is a positive change to the law. It will apply new and anticipated fine enforcement procedures under state and territory law to federal offenders. It will ensure that fine enforcement procedures of a judicial nature are only performed by judicial officers in respect of federal offenders. It will ensure that arrangements between the Commonwealth and each state and territory covering the performance of fine enforcement functions by officers of states and territories can extend to new and evolving fine enforcement procedures.This is positive legislation. It indicates that this government is not bound by the past. We are prepared to look at new and efficient means of imposing penalties. We are prepared to ensure that people are encouraged to pay fines rather than take the soft option of a custodial sentence, which, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, can incur additional substantial expenditure on the community at large. It is all about a sensible use of the community's money.On behalf of the government, I am particularly pleased to join the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) in supporting this piece of legislation. I commend the opposition on backing the government in the amendments currently before the House. Without detaining the House further, I commend this very important amendment bill, the Crimes Amendment (Enforcement of Fines) Bill 1998 , to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5077Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Sullivan) read a third time.Bills5077Message received from the Senate returning the following bills and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bills as amended by the House at the request of the Senate: General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Adjournment5077Motion (by Mrs Sullivan) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.507721:15:005077Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I had not planned to speak in the adjournment debate tonight, but when the adjournment was brought on slightly earlier I thought I would take the opportunity of rising in the chamber to congratulate the Treasurer (Mr Costello) on bringing down a budget which, for the first time in eight years, has restored the books of this country to the black. We actually have a budget surplus of $2.7 billion. Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) is obviously very ashamed of the fact that the former Labor government, in contrast, was not able to level with the people of Australia. The former Labor government was part of a succession of governments since 1983 which continued to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren by ensuring that the government continued to spend more than it earned.These days, you cannot run a country any other way than you would run a household economy. At home, you simply cannot spend more than the family earns. Despite that, year after year we found that successive Labor Treasurers would come into the chamber and say that we would be having a deficit. At the end of the day, the people of Australia revolted at the ballot box on 2 March 1996.We all remember the former finance minister, the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) telling us that the books of the nation were in surplus. We all remember the way he said that the finances of Australia were in the black. We tried to find out exactly what the situation was, but both the former Prime Minister and the now Leader of the Opposition told us that they could not give us the exact dollar figures but that the budget was in surplus. We all know that on 2 March 1996 the Labor Party was swept from office. A huge tidal wave cast them into the dustbin of history. They were reduced to 49 members of this place, and the Liberal and National parties overwhelmingly received the support of the Australian people. Seventy-six Liberal Party members and 18 National Party members were elected—a total coalition majority of 94 to 49, with a number of Independents.So the Labor Party obviously ought to have learnt the lesson and appreciated that one ought to level and be honest with the Australian people. The Treasurer told the House that we would introduce a charter of budget honesty bill, and we did. Ultimately, it has got through the parliament, but the Labor Party initially refused to guarantee passage of the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill. This bill will ensure that never again will any government be able to lie and deceive the Australian people, or seek to do so, when an election is called. At every future election, you will find that the secretaries to the departments of Treasury and Finance will certify as to the books of Australia so that the people will be able to decide on election day whether the government of the day is worthy of continued support. They will be able to point out what the actual situation is. I believe that history will record that as being one of the major changes put in place by this government, because what we have ensured is that in future there will be honesty, openness and accountability, and that we will never again find that governments will seek to lie, rob and cheat their way back into another term of office.So I am proud to be part of a government which inherited a $10.3 billion debt but accepted the responsibility to fix it—and fixed it we have. For the first time in eight years, the budget is now back in the black. There is a budget surplus of $2.7 billion, and our children and grandchildren will thank the Treasurer and this government for our responsible economic management. I believe that this is one of the best governments in this country's history. We will continue to receive the support of the Australian people, because they support honesty, openness, accountability and good government. (Time expired)507821:20:005078Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—On two occasions over the past month the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) has risen in this House and claimed that since 1995 there has been no reduction of the number of women in the work force because of child care changes. He has brandished graphs. He has stamped his foot. He has said that contrary claims made by other members and me are lies and falsehoods. He has said that Labor's assertions that working women were either leaving their jobs or reducing their hours of work because they could no longer afford to keep their children in care were scaremongering and a fear campaign. Indeed, when I spoke on the appropriation bills earlier this month and reported that the government's charges and changes had forced the local council in my area to take a decision to close its community child-care centre at Greenfield Park on 1 August, the minister said that I was making outrageous claims.I wonder what the minister thought when he opened the Sydney Morning Herald this morning to find it reporting that figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the average weekly hours worked by married women in both full-time and part-time employment have fallen since December. At the same time, figures also show that there has been a growth in the number of families where only the male is employed.I wonder what he thought about the article's findings that, as the government's child-care changes force women to leave the work force, it is bringing about a dramatic and largely unwelcome social change for Australian working women. In case the minister may actually want to acquaint himself with the facts rather than bury his head in the sand and insult anyone who attempts to alert him to what is really going on, let me read into Hansard the employment figures quoted by the Herald. The work force participation rate of women with children under 15 fell from 59.1 per cent in March 1996 to 58.3 in February this year—a figure that reverses five years of growth. The article went on to state:A consistent and growing body of evidence indicates women, particularly in the middle and lower income groups, are dropping out of the workforce altogether, or switching from full-time work to part-time work or moving into casual jobs.They are reducing their children's days in childcare and calling on friends, neighbours and grandparents to look after them for cash payments or for nothing.It states further:In real terms a lower income family with a child in full-time day care was paying 50 per cent more in 1997 than in 1992. Only the rich—with family incomes over $100,000—appear to be unaffected by the Government's changes.What is the minister's response to these facts? Perhaps it is more personal abuse to me, or is the minister actually going to admit to the effects this government's child-care changes are now having in the general community? Unfortunately, I do not think the latter is an option. The minister, as we all know, has had this information in his own top drawer for months, and he certainly has not confessed to it. As we all know, the minister did not need the Sydney Morning Herald to give him this information. His own budget papers would have told him the same story, if only he had bothered to analyse them.Why else did the Howard government spend $150 million less on child-care subsidies than it had budgeted for this year if it was not for the fact that there has been a massive withdrawal of kids from community based care by working mothers who are leaving their jobs to care for their own kids and, therefore, not qualifying for the payment? To add insult to injury, the government has a bill currently before the Senate to allow tax deductibility for party political donations up to $1,500—a move that is going to rob the Commonwealth of $45 million in revenue over three years, if passed. That is $45 million that could go into child care to alleviate or reverse some of the side effects that are hurting so many middle and low income families throughout Australia. That is $45 million that could keep centres open, keep child-care workers in jobs or even allow centres to return services such as providing nutritional meals and educational toys—services that have had to be cut because of lack of funds.The minister can shake his little graph on labour force participation figures about as much as he likes. He can resort to calling people names for trying to alert me, or in my case to alert him, to what his so-called child-care reforms are doing out there in the electorate, but he cannot deny the evidence. The minister cannot deny the figures that are showing mothers dropping out of the work force in droves. He cannot deny that child-care centres—such as Greenfield Park in my electorate—are closing down. The centres are destined to close because they have no rescue package, and he cannot deny the growing ranks of latchkey kids who are fending for themselves before and after school because mum and dad can no longer afford the fees.To deny these facts, to deny the major social change that is rippling through the Australian working family today because of this government's child-care reforms, is to deny reality. While the minister may find denying reality a simpler and more personally satisfying course to follow, to do so means that we will continue to see women haemorrhaging from the work force and a community based child-care sector slipping further and further into crisis. I condemn him and the government for it.508021:25:005080Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Few in this place would disagree with the simple statement, `If you do the crime, you should do the time.' It has always struck me as one of the great frustrations from the federal parliamentary perspective to note that there is a great variety of fines and penalties that are imposed upon those who have done the crime around Australia. I applaud the effort of the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to try to slowly but surely work his way through the various criminal codes in this country and to try to get the various vested interests in various state governments to actually sit down and get some consistent treatment for criminals in this country.I note especially the Queensland government—I suspect, the outgoing Queensland government—introduced a tough set of laws during the last 12 months, laws which I am afraid the Australian Labor Party did not vote for. They are, after all, well known to be soft on crime, and it is a matter of great concern to me as a Queenslander that an incoming minority Labor government in Queensland will in fact fulfil their threat to Queenslanders prior to the election and white ant the tough laws introduced by the coalition government. I am optimistic, though, that one of the gaggle of Independents will not allow this to happen and will obviously vote with the Liberal and National parties in opposition to Labor's efforts to soften the justice act which now exists in Queensland.People in my electorate welcome clear cut and tough laws in the treatment of criminals in the state of Queensland. But one of the things I would like to raise in the House this evening is the fact that we also need some certainty and consistency for victims of crime. I applaud the efforts of the Victims of Crime Association in Queensland under the leadership of Ian Davies, a man I have known for over 10 years. In fact, I was one of the people on the founding executive of the Victims of Crime Association in Queensland.The people in this organisation are not after compensation as such. Their primary concern is the way victims are treated by the various systems in this country. When you stop to think about some of the things victims have gone through—not just simply facing the prospect of having some horrible crime, something heinous which none of us in this room would ever wish upon our very worst of associates, even right down to a simple thing as the betrayal of having a purse stolen out of your bag, which is something that has happened to too many people I know—it is important victims are not confronted by a system which treats them merely as evidence but actually does take into account what they have been through.It is important a victim be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and in a way which is responsive to their age, gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences or disability or other special need. They are fair, straightforward and simple to understand principles. It is important the fundamental principles of justice for victims of crime are upheld, and it is important the trauma which victims suffer as a result of crime, which creates absolute chaos in their lifestyles—they lose a basic sense of trust of their fellow man, they lose a great deal of confidence in going out in the outside world—is factored in when it comes to sentencing the perpetrators of the crimes.Consider the conflict which occurs between families and friends of victims of crime. Consider what they go through. These sorts of matters need to be looked at by those who are sentencing those who have been found guilty of crimes. It is a simple matter. The victim's privacy needs to be protected, their property returned if it was in fact stolen. There needs to be what is now known in modern jargon a `victim's impact statement' when it comes to sentencing. I refer to the Victims of Crime Association's marvellous handbook, which I happily distribute in my electorate, You are not alone: support for victims of crime. It states:"At the sentencing of an offender for a crime, the prosecutor should inform the sentencing court of appropriate details of the harm caused to a victim by the crime." A victim of crime may present a victim impact statement to the Court to inform the Court how the crime has affected them personally. Victim Impact Statements are usually presented to the Court by the Prosecutor, but can be read personally.Those sorts of matters need to be taken into account. We need to weigh up laws right across this country, not just in Queensland where a lot of these things have changed over the last 10 years as a result of the Victims of Crime Association's efforts. We need to make sure governments right across the country start to weigh up a bit more on the side of victims of crime to make sure those who perpetrate the crime do the time, to make sure the penalties they face are exact to make them realise the harm they have caused the victim and society as a whole. (Time expired)508121:30:005081Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I am pleased to advise the House that a number of community groups and local government organisations from western Sydney will be visiting parliament this week. These groups include the alliance of mayors and the Blacktown anti-airport noise committee. The groups will be conveying to government and opposition members our communities' opposition to an airport at Badgerys Creek. I was also pleased to table today 1,630 petitions from residents of western Sydney opposing this airport. These petitions, on top of the many thousands that have already been tabled in this parliament, send a clear message to government and opposition that this proposed airport is not welcome in western Sydney.The opposition to this airport is so strong that a new opportunistic group, which has not previously taken part in political activity in western Sydney, is now, at the 11th hour, adopting an anti-airport policy leading up to the coming federal election. The general argument against the airport was clearly put in three letters published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 June. I quote in part from each of these letters. From Judith Ohana of Lane Cove:Wouldn't it make more sense for his committee—Mr Rod McGeoch's—to join with community groups in demanding the urgent construction of a world-class, 24-hour international airport, outside the urban area? Surely Sydney deserves no less.From Colin Anderson of Lapstone:Peter Redhead (Letters, June 8) makes two erroneous assumptions.The first is that it is better to get it wrong fast (by pushing ahead with Badgerys Creek) than to get it right cautiously (by examining alternative options).The second is that because a development proposal has been around "since the `60s" it remains viable.Peter, let the Government not make a decision in haste that we Sydneysiders will repent at leisure and let us all realise that the Badgerys Creek proposal has long since passed its use-by date and urge the Federal Government to look for a 21st-century solution to your problem: a second airport for Sydney outside an already overpopulated and over-polluted Sydney basin linked by a VFT to the CBD.And from Larissa B. McIntyre of Moree:I, on the other hand, do not suffer the same despair, for I can see an airport fit for the 21st century and beyond without the problems of previous proposals. One which will leave Sydney with a not-so-noisy domestic terminal at Mascot.An airport that is designed for the task, an airport not hemmed in by the boundaries of a sprawling, land-hungry city, an airport that could provide thousands of jobs in a depressed area, an airport with an amazingly fast rail link, an airport that sits in between the nation's capital and "Australia's greatest city". Where, you ask?"Welcome to Sydney's (only) international airport, Goulburn, the home of the Big Merino."The building of an airport at Badgerys Creek is a 1980s solution to a year 2010 problem. The western Sydney residential area has expanded and has become denser. It is now a lot closer to the Badgerys Creek site than it was in 1985. Since 1985, residents of western Sydney have become more aware of our existing air and water pollution problems, which would only deteriorate further if an airport were built in this area. With the Badgerys Creek site, which is landlocked, there is a 360-degree problem. No matter which option you go for—A, B or C—planes will be flying over residential area soon after take-off.There is particularly strong opposition to this airport from the rank and file members of the ALP in western Sydney. In correspondence sent to people who had made submissions on the Badgerys Creek EIS, from Minister Vaile's office, an attempt was made to imply that the federal ALP members in western Sydney supported the building of Badgerys Creek airport. Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister's letter conveniently ignored the speeches made by the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio), the member for Chifley (Mr Price) and myself concerning the airport.The letter also ignored the strong stand taken by state ALP members of parliament opposing the airport. More importantly, the letter ignored the grassroots opposition to this airport by ALP branch members, federal electorate councils and a recent regional assembly decision also opposing the airport. There is no more significant block of community expression of opposition to this airport than the ALP block in western Sydney. The major political parties will ignore the views of the residents of western Sydney on the issue of Sydney's second international airport at their peril.508221:35:005082Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—Pauline Hanson, the member for Oxley, says that her One Nation Party is different from all the other political parties. In this respect at least she is absolutely right, as the Sun-Herald newspaper revealed on Sunday. Whatever faults the existing parties have, at least they are all internal democracies. In the Liberal Party, for instance—my own party—members elect delegates to state council, the state council elects office-bearers and elects an executive to take responsibility for the affairs of the party. It is a democracy because every member has a share, however small, in the democratic decision making process of the party.The member for Oxley says that she is listening to the people, that she is the only true democrat amongst all the mere politicians that make up this parliament. However, an examination of the One Nation Party's internal structure shows that the member for Oxley believes in democracy but not just yet. She believes in democracy but only for other people. Pauline Hanson's political party is not a political party as such, but a company. It is not a democracy, but a business. It does not have thousands of members: it just has three directors—the member for Oxley, David Oldfield and David Ettridge.Like the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), I do not believe in personal attacks on my colleagues, however misguided they might be. But I do think that the people of Australia have a right to know—any of those who are tempted to support the One Nation Party—that it is not a democratic party they might be tempted to support but, in fact, a private company with just three directors running it and they are responsible to no-one but themselves. The people of Australia who might be tempted to support the One Nation Party need to know that every time they give One Nation money they are not giving it to a democratic organisation which they control: they are giving it to a private company run by just three people. They should also know—and again I am indebted to the Sun-Herald for this information—that every dollar they give to One Nation means 12.5c given to the pocket of David Ettridge. David Ettridge, as it turns out, is operating on the same basis as Terry Bourke, the brother of Brian Burke, the former Premier of Western Australia, operated; only at least Terry Burke's money went to the Labor Party which was democratically controlled by its members.Then there is the question of the public funding of $500,000 due to One Nation as a result of its Queensland election vote. This $500,000 presumably is not going into the hands of the party itself; it is going into the hands of the three people who control that party—Hanson, Oldfield and Ettridge. The people of Australia need to ask the question: is what they really want that public funding should go not to democratic parties but to private companies controlled by just three people?I think it is time that explanations were demanded from the member for Oxley. What does she intend to do with the taxpayers' money to which her party is entitled? I seek from the member for Oxley an absolute and categoric assurance that none of that taxpayers' money will end up in the hands of David Ettridge. I seek a further assurance that none of that taxpayers' money will be used to fund the personal expenses of her staff. It is a very strange political party which trots out a member of a politician's staff to speak on behalf of the party. In this country, we have a tradition that politicians should speak for themselves. Sure, staff advise them, but at the end of the day they speak for themselves and they take responsibility for their words. But, with One Nation, you might vote for Pauline Hanson but you actually get David Oldfield who not only writes the words but also increasingly is saying them. This is a deeply un-Australian development.As someone who knows David Oldfield's capacity to look after No. 1, I warn the member for Oxley not to put herself in the hands of two old diving buddies who go back much further with each other than they do with her. I make this prediction that David Oldfield will use One Nation to try to get himself elected to the Senate and then he will seek to become the leader of One Nation in form as well as in substance, and that would be a very dangerous and damaging development for this country.508321:40:005083Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—Having received an honourable mention in Paul Sheehan's odious polemic Among the Barbarians , I rise to comment on the recent rise of the racist One Nation Party. It is worth thinking about why now? Why has racial intolerance and bigotry moved at this time from the lunatic fringe to the centre stage of our national politics?The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has from time to time portrayed the rise of One Nation as a backlash against political correctness. Over 13 years of government, Labor consistently gave leadership on the issue of immigration and racial tolerance. We proclaimed our nation's multicultural diversity. We championed our engagement with Asia and reconciliation with indigenous Australians. We did not hesitate to confront bigotry, prejudice and racism. If that was political correctness, then we were very proud of it. It was our leadership, coupled with Australia's great reserves of tolerance and decency, which for so long kept racial intolerance and bigotry off the centre stage of our political life.Of course, others took a different position. Any explanation of the rise of One Nation must include the preparation of Australia's political ground by years of coalition sloganeering about the supposed evils of political correctness, the alleged failures of multiculturalism and the thinly veiled pandering to the darker undercurrents of Australian society. It was John Howard who played the race card in 1988 with his advocacy of an anti-Asian immigration policy—something with which One Nation is now only too happy to exploit in its search for political legitimacy. John Howard paid the political price in 1988 when so many people recoiled from what they saw as the start of a reversion to the White Australia of old.It was only after he had made extraordinary efforts to reinvent himself, to assure Australians that he was a new John Howard, that people were prepared to give him a second chance. The old adage that a leopard cannot change its spots certainly applies to the Prime Minister. No analysis of One Nation's rise can fail to highlight the Prime Minister's calculated refusal to confront Pauline Hanson and to confront the fundamental threat her party represents to Australia's future. When Pauline Hanson first attacked Asian immigration and the rights of indigenous Australians, John Howard applauded what he declared to be an end to political correctness. All along he has consistently sent her supporters carefully coded messages of sympathy, encouragement and support.No-one can ignore the vital role of coalition preference votes in translating support for One Nation into parliamentary representation in Queensland. John Howard's persistent refusal to put One Nation last gave them political legitimacy they could never have gained otherwise. He did not just fail to treat this political cancer; he nurtured it and allowed it to grow. One Nation would have won fewer, if indeed any, seats in Queensland if the coalition had followed Labor's example in putting One Nation last on its how-to-vote cards.Yesterday, the Prime Minister grudgingly said he would put One Nation last in the seat of Bennelong. But, even now, he refuses to give the leadership required to ensure that all elements of his government put One Nation last. Even now he has nothing of substance to say about his coalition partners. This is nothing more than sending a message to Liberal voters in our cities, while Tim Fischer and the Nationals hold to their strategy of extending preferences to One Nation in the bush.It is John Howard who is comfortable and relaxed about seeing the balance of power in the Australian Senate transferred from Brian Harradine to One Nation. Even with a half Senate election, we face the prospect of being held hostage for six years by a racist fringe with all the poisonous consequences that will mean for our national life. It does not worry John Howard—not at all. He is relaxed and comfortable about seeing Australia's politics swing back to the past he, after all, always wanted us to be in: the Australia of the 1950s, the exclusive society of old. The good news is that, whatever happens, John Howard's leadership is finished. Well may he eke out what I think is an increasingly paranoid existence in the Lodge, but no carefully coded messages to One Nation can revive his prospects. He has lost all his moral authority, and it is only a matter of time before he moves from the political stage. But it is those of us who are left behind, those of us who will have to deal with the morning after his office, who will have the task ahead of us—those of us who will pay the penalty for this racist tango.508421:44:005084Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise to speak on the need for a realistic look at the transport facilities available in my electorate of Gilmore. The declaration of main road 92, the Shoalhaven Highway, as a road of national importance is recognition of the need for the transport corridors on the South Coast to be opened up further. The local community has been fighting for this for 20 years and now it has taken the guts and cooperation of the three tiers of government to see that this is achieved.The Shoalhaven City Council has been proactive in its efforts to get this road upgraded and it has been supported by the declaration of the road as a RONI. However, the Princes Highway, which travels the length of Gilmore, is also in need of urgent funding, particularly in black spot areas such as north Kiama, the Minnamurra bends, Ulladulla, south Kiama and Nowra. However, the federal Labor Party has already signalled its intention not to provide black spot funding and not to fund roads of national importance.In fact, the opposition transport spokesman described the funding of main road 92 as a `retrograde step'. He said, `It's just a gravel road,' and gave no consideration to the importance of this `gravel road' for the communities of the South Coast. This was despite the upgrade of main road 92 meeting the Labor Party's platform in regard to environmental concerns and alternative routes in cases of emergency.Obviously, Labor will not fund the upgrade of main road 92 and Labor will once again ignore the Gilmore community, as it did for the 13 years prior to the election of the Howard government. It is no wonder that the Minnamurra bends have also been ignored by Labor. The road is the responsibility of the state government, and the New South Wales Minister for Roads has only given it medium-term priority for upgrading, despite the horrific accidents along the road which have claimed the lives of many local residents and visitors for many years.Even my predecessor, the then Labor member for Gilmore, Peter Knott, laid the blame for the upgrade of the north Kiama bends squarely at the feet of Bob Carr when he issued a card-writing campaign. What did Mr Knott have to say? He said:Dear Bob,We are writing to you about the horrible traffic bottleneck that occurs at Kiama every weekend. We've waited 10 years for the RTA to build the North Kiama Bypass! Can the Carr Labor Government please be decisive and give us leadership in solving this problem?What has been the response of the Carr Labor government? Roadworks on the Kiama bends have been declared only of medium-term importance and it appears that the state government will do nothing for at least the next six to 10 years. That is what a Labor government thinks of the needs of the local community.Some months ago, the NRMA completed a study of the Princes Highway which concluded that several areas required immediate upgrading. I wrote to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) in May seeking his support for making the Princes Highway south of Sydney to the New South Wales-Victorian border a road of national importance. I also requested that consideration be given to allocating funding from the black spots program to the areas mentioned as particularly dangerous, including the Kiama bends.It is interesting to note that neither of these categories of funding will be supported by a Labor government. Not only are the transport corridors of the community ignored, but so too are the dangerous sections of road known as black spots. Some 12 months ago I invited representatives from the Kiama Council to meet with senior advisers to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. The result of that meeting—which included the Kiama state member, the Kiama Council mayor, the deputy mayor, the general manager and the engineer—was to wait for the outcome of the studies by the state government.I understand that those studies are still being finalised, yet the deputy mayor of Kiama—now the Labor candidate for Gilmore—is campaigning for the federal government to fund the upgrade of the road through the Federation Fund. Even the New South Wales Premier, Mr Bob Carr, did not include the Minnamurra bends on his wish list for the Federation Fund. Again, the Labor Party does not support the upgrade of the Minnamurra bends and will not fund it.I have already sent the Labor candidate a copy of the application for federation funds so that she can follow the normal procedure to apply like any other Australian and like members of the Gilmore community who are putting forward proposals. Rather than go through normal channels, Labor candidates are playing politics with the needs of the local community. What a shame that the Labor candidate does not pay attention to the fact that it was her delegation which put the federal government involvement in the road on hold until her Labor Party mates in the state government accepted their responsibility for the road.Labor will not fund the upgrade of main road 92. Labor will not fund the upgrade of the Minnamurra bends, even if that road is made a road of national importance, and now Labor wants to see the funds set aside to help communities celebrate the centenary of Federation put in to cover the lack of leadership, responsibility and accountability of the current state Labor government.To start yet another petition, just like the former Labor member for Gilmore did, shows that the Labor candidate believes that the people of Kiama are naive and will fall for such a political stunt. Actions such as the commitment by this federal government to fund the upgrade of main road 92, to fund the roads of national importance, to fund black spot areas, speak louder than the empty words of rhetoric from Labor.508521:49:005085Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—On a number of occasions in this House there have been calls on the government to establish an Australian embassy in Zagreb, Croatia. Most recently, a private member's motion was moved in May by the member for Moore (Mr Filing) and seconded very ably by my colleague at the table, the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), calling on the government to give active consideration to establishing such a facility in Croatia and making the very obvious point that there was a very significant gap in Australian representation overseas. Government members in this chamber, on that occasion, as they have on other occasions, opposed that particular proposition.The proposition comes back before the House through this medium because I have received—courtesy of the ALP's outstanding candidate in the seat of McMillan, Christian Zahra—a petition organised by the Gippsland Croatian Association calling for the government to establish an embassy to the Republic of Croatia. Unfortunately, the petition is not in a form suitable for formal presentation to the House, so I take this opportunity to speak on the matter.Obviously and self-evidently, south-eastern Europe is not in Australia's prime sphere of strategic interest, but there are nonetheless vital interests for Australia in that region. It is the place of origin of tens of thousands of Australian citizens, and an estimated 10,000 Australian citizens are presently resident in Croatia. However, in that situation, to service that very significant social and cultural need, we only have one very under-resourced, overworked honorary consul to meet the vast array of duties that are required by the level of representation that the Croatian Australian community demands.The needs not only relate to the Republic of Croatia but also to the adjoining Republic of Slovenia and to Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is an area from which tens of thousands of people have migrated to Australia. In that region of south-eastern Europe, the government continues to neglect the important functions that can be performed by an upgraded and enhanced Australian diplomatic and consular presence.Because of its social and cultural contacts and because it is the place of origin for so many of our citizens, Australia has an oppor tunity to act as an honest broker from time to time and to play a role in resolving some of the outstanding issues that afflict that part of the world. Our failure to provide diplomatic representation there is a significant missed opportunity.A very significant range of economic opportunities is also provided in that particular part of south-eastern Europe which Australia is simply not in a position to adequately explore, given the absence of effective representation, and we therefore place ourselves behind our competitors in that region in a situation where, hopefully, in the context of peace settlements emerging over time, rapid economic growth can be achieved.Australian interests in that part of Europe are represented from the very charming city of Vienna. I can understand why some of our diplomats might well enjoy life in Vienna. There are important functions to carry out in Vienna, not least because it is the home of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nonetheless, that does not diminish the significant inconvenience and the significant missed opportunities that arise from Australia not taking up the opportunity from the call from the Australian-Croatian community for the government to advance this issue. The only reason in opposition advanced by government speakers on the occasion in May was the question of cost. The reality is that Australia is missing significant opportunities which are not costed into this. Australia does maintain representation in some places which, I would suggest, are somewhat less important to us socially and culturally than south-eastern Europe. There is also a very important area of grievance in the Croatian community in Australia in relation to the failure of this government to adequately pursue social security agreements and health agreements with Croatia. Australia does have a significant number of social security agreements, but nowhere near enough, and a smaller number of international health agreements. These agreements are vital, particularly in aging communities, to ensure that Australian citizens, through their circumstances, are treated equally with other citizens. (Time expired)508721:54:005087Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—Just before question time this afternoon the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) made another of the sleazy statements for which the ALP has achieved some renown. He asserted that at a recent Liberal Party branch meeting in my electorate there was division among members over where One Nation should be placed on the ballot.I know that the member for Wills and Labor members on the other side of the Hume Highway are taking a keen interest in the electorate of Deakin. If the member for Wills had bothered to spend $1.30 of his own money, he would have read in yesterday's Sunday Age in an article by Gabrielle Costa that `I want to put One Nation last even though it could cost me some votes'. If his intelligence were more reliable, he would know that I have expressed grave concern about the activities of far right groups in the area and my fears about the citizens of Deakin being unsuspectingly swayed by these extremists.If the member for Wills were to make an honest assessment, he would admit that I have always supported a multicultural Australia. If he had any integrity at all, he would admit that I have promoted harmony among various groups of different ethnic backgrounds by attempting to bring them together for purposes a lot more honourable than the branch stacking by those opposite. If he had done half the research normally expected of a shadow parliamentary secretary, he would know that I have successfully argued for the establishment of a migrant resource centre in the eastern suburbs, an area long neglected by the former Labor government. But honesty and integrity have little place in today's Labor Party. With the whiff of an election in the air, they are happily following the Pied Piper down the gutter. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) retains a seat in this place only because of the preference deal he did with Australians Against Further Immigration at the last election. In his early days as leader, he compounded his hypocrisy by presiding over the Lindsay by-election, nodding and winking when his old mate Ross Free preferenced that same party over the Liberals. I have the how-to-vote card of Ross Free in front of me as evidence of that.I know Kim Beazley is not a racist, but he has a shameful record of placing politics above principle when he believes it to be advantageous. He has done so on this issue, as he has done with his two-faced stance on tax reform. By contrast, many coalition MPs have stood up for the principles of fairness. They made it clear as I have made it clear: One Nation will be last on the ticket. I would not care to phrase my attitude as the Sunday Age did—that is, content to risk my seat—but I make no bones about my opposition to One Nation's tawdry stance on racial issues and their pathetic, simplistic approach to employment and industry development policies. These are dangerous ideas expressed by a party that is controlled by those who dwell in the shadows of our society. To the people of Deakin who are seeing these ultra right-wing elements such as the National Action group and those individuals typically associated with the Ku Klux Klan moving to Ringwood in Melbourne's east, I say be careful. But One Nation's ideas are not new ideas. They have been heard before. It seems as if some of the survivors of the self-instigated class warfare long ago have now emerged from their cave espousing old militant Labor beliefs.The member for Wills is playing the game of demagogues. He criticises the coalition from the security of his safe seat yet is loath to speak out directly against One Nation because he perceives some political advantage in his silence. The true test of political courage with One Nation preferences is by those of us who live on the electoral knife edge. The member for Wills could have no understanding of the Liberal Party, where debate is encouraged and not stifled, where ideas have primacy over timeworn mantras, and where the interests of all Australians are worth more than the votes of special interest groups.For the record, there was no letter from Premier Kennett even though he has spoken out strongly against One Nation. Finally, there were no threats emanating from the meeting. The Liberal members of Deakin have no sympathy for One Nation or One Nation's views, but they are all very keen to fight and to once again expose the fraud that Labor continues to perpetrate on the Australian people. As usual the ALP has it wrong, but they have never been guilty of letting the truth interfere with a good story.508821:59:005088Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I, like nearly every member in this House, abhor the racial agenda of One Nation and many of the things it stands for. It is a really sad state of affairs in this country when people's frustrations should be centred on that party because they see a lack of representation of their frustrations in the existing party system. It would be quite wrong to write off One Nation's result in Queensland as an aberration. The Queensland election result showed that One Nation is a lightning rod for that frustration and the insecurity that is now out there, particularly in regional parts of Australia.When this government came to power it was quick to point out that the former Labor government had been guilty—and so it was, largely—of political correctness. But for the last decade in this country anybody who has spoken out on the economic agenda, the trade agenda particularly, of government and the world trade liberalisation program has been accused of questioning the economic correctness that has been out there in the marketplace. This has particularly stuck in the craw of people like the pig producers out there who do not want to be told they are inefficient, that they have no future if they do not export. They have a very efficient industry, as have others in the rural trade.I instance the industry in my own electorate that I alluded to in the trade minority report delivered to parliament today, Challenge Implements Pty Ltd in Orange, which, but for the want of a five per cent protection, are likely to go out the back door because they are suddenly faced with huge economies of scale from multinational importers of farming equipment. They have a strong research and innovation program that means a lot for that area. An age-old family business and 30 to 40 long-term employees are likely to hit the wall, be wiped off the face of the earth, for the want of a five per cent protection.I think this government is barking up the wrong tree when it believes native title is so essential to its future at the polls. That was not what the Queensland election was about; it was about the need for some lightning rod for that frustration—to send a strong message to the parliament and to the political parties that there needs to be a reassessment of their priorities. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) now speaks of freehold in the same breath as the rights of pastoralists. Native title is nothing, and will be nothing, whatever happens in the Senate, without the right to negotiate for those who have cleared that very high threshold hurdle.The media should take a very strong look at itself over its role and its handling of the Hanson phenomenon. It accepted recently on the front page of the Herald that Ms Hanson was responsible for the backflip in the pig industry assistance package, when in fact you and I know that this package had been worked up over several months and was due for announcement some time that week. It says a lot for the very clever manipulation of the media by the organisation behind One Nation.The media has been less than scrupulous in its dealings throughout the last couple of years. The publication of articles in the paper at the weekend I would suspect as being not of her own writ. Not enough attempt has been made, as the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott) alluded to earlier tonight, to make the leader of One Nation stand up and be answerable for her own policies instead of letting other shadowy figures become the mouthpiece.The member for Warringah says that the agenda of One Nation is an Oldfield and Ettridge agenda, and it certainly seems to be that way. Let the leader stand up here and defend herself more and more. Who is funding this organisation? It has only a modest amount of money on the public record but seems to have unlimited resources elsewhere.3E4SULLIVANMrs Sullivan—It wouldn't have anything to do with firearms, would it?KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—I wonder. I appeal to the electorate to examine the ability of One Nation to deliver anything meaningful. They should look, if they need to—and I suggest they do at this stage in the party system history—at broad based Independents, particularly, say, Robert Wilson in the seat of Parkes, rather than wasting their vote. Look at a man with a lot of background who can deliver something of substance. (Time expired)508922:04:005089Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise tonight to highlight the success of the work for the dole scheme, particularly in my electorate of Robertson. I am very proud to announce that I have the largest work for the dole scheme anywhere in New South Wales. This scheme is operated by Gosford City Council and has approximately 120 participants. The managing agents of that scheme are Personal Attention and Associates, a group in my electorate that I know well and who are well respected.The work for the dole scheme is not just a training scheme. It is about giving people a new start, a new hope in life and getting them jobs. One of the problems we have with our work for the dole scheme in Gosford is the fact that we keep losing participants, not because they wander off dissatisfied but because they get full-time employment and they leave the scheme.I have two totally unsolicited letters here from two participants in this scheme. I would like to read them into the Hansard tonight. The first letter is from Raelene Nicholls of Umina Beach. She wrote:To All Staff,I am writing to say thank you to each and every staff member for not only doing your job, but for being so genuinely caring and always enthusiastically helping people with the hard task of job seeking.I, being a mother of three small children, had left the workforce for maternal reasons, had been unemployed for a period of two years. I decided to return to the workforce not realising how difficult a task I had set out, I soon became depressed and found I needed help. I decided to volunteer—yes, to `volunteer'—for the `Work for the Dole' scheme to give myself experience going to work and leaving my children, as well as learning new skills to help me better my chances of obtaining a job.Little did I know at the time that the staff actually seeked possible employment positions for their recruits and then arrange an interview if suitable.In my case I was suitable for the position informed about and got the job. I am thoroughly enjoying my Customer Service position at Brumbys Bakery and have been for nine (9) weeks.I would also like to add a special, THANKS, to Chris Hoare, my supervisor at Osborne Ave, Umina (work for the dole site).That is the new youth facility centre that we are constructing under that work for the dole scheme. The letter continues:Chris taught me to regain confidence not only in myself but also in others, with his always positive outlook and good will. My only regret about my volunteer work was having to part.Thank You again for changing my life.Yours wholeheartedly,Raelene NichollsThe second letter is from Darryl Ward, also from Umina. He wrote:To all the Staff of Personal Attraction,All the thanks in the world go to you for all the help & new skills I received from you. You gave me & others on the dole the chance to get back in to the swing of working. This project also gave me a new attitude and the right motivation to start looking for work againI work at the Osborne Ave site for 5 mths. In this time I learned how to correctly use power tools, hand tools & wood, to make all types of obstacles for the youth of the coast. (Chris, watch out for that shovel)To all the projects on the coast you're doing a great job & you've got an excellent team behind you in your team leaders. Elizabeth & all the office staff, O! who can forget `Dave' and `Chris'. And the one that shines all the time with all the energy of the world at her feet `Kay'.Good Luck To All of You,Thankyou,DarrylThose are just two letters from two very enthusiastic participants in the work for the dole scheme. I have been to the Osborne Avenue site. I have been to a number of other sites throughout the Gosford shire where the work for the dole scheme and its participants are working. They are an enthusiastic bunch who are being trained by a professional group of trainers. They are creating for themselves a work ethic and a team building spirit that I have not seen at any other training scheme anywhere on the Central Coast. They are allowing people to get back into the work force, to get control of their lives again and to start rebuilding.I look forward to the expansion of the work for the dole scheme, and I would hope that many thousands of other young people will have an opportunity throughout Australia to participate in the work for the dole scheme, which, unlike some of the previous government's training schemes, is not just recycling people but finding them jobs and giving them a chance to regain their lives. (Time expired)509022:09:005090Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I join with the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott) in expressing some concern about revelations over the weekend in regard to the internal operations of One Nation. As the member for Warringah has quite clearly pointed out to this House, there are all the indications of a very undemocratic structure within that organisation. It appears that essentially we are talking about a company with ownership by three political operators—one of whom is elected to this House. I was also concerned about aspects of the articles over the weekend which indicate that internally members in different sections of the organisation are restricted in their contact with other elements within the party.On a local front, I was interested to note that the candidate standing against me in the seat of Reid was selected before a meeting occurred within that electorate. He was elected at a meeting of people in another electorate. So there are very strong questions about the structure of this organisation. I think the Australian people would be increasingly concerned as to where taxpayer finance is going in regard to electoral funding. As the member pointed out, if one looks at the amount of money they have obtained on the public record, one will see that there seems to be a great discrepancy between their ability to fund their operations and what they reveal in regard to finance.What we have here is a structure which has come up in the context of very grave concern by the Australian electorate about politicians and whether they are listening to them, about long-term employment prospects, et cetera, ad nauseam. But the conduit for that concern, the conduit for that worry about the future of this country, is very questionable.I want to turn to one of the groups that the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) particularly concentrates upon—the Aboriginal community in this country. I was provoked today in regard to receiving one of those vote-a-grams which talked about equity in this country. Basically, that line of argument in regard to Aboriginal people stems from the comments made by the member for Oxley in her maiden speech in this House.It is worth putting on the record again—and I know that the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has been a pacemaker on this—some of the facts about Aboriginality in this country. Only 45 per cent of Aboriginal men reach 65 years of age compared with 80 per cent of the rest of this country's population. Only 54 per cent of their women reach 65 years of age compared with 90 per cent of non-Aboriginals. For Aboriginal children, the incidence of pneumonia is 80 times higher than for any other Australian. Thirty-four per cent of Aboriginal communities have water supply levels below accepted national guidelines. Forty-five per cent have insufficient water supply to meet their needs over the next five years.Forty-five of the 99 deaths in custody investigated by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody were people taken from their parents as children. People try to say that it was not of any relevance, that it was not of any moment that people were taken from their parents, yet we are seeing a clear correlation between deaths in custody and the taking of those people. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody completed its final report in 1991. It investigated 99 cases of deaths in custody. Since then there have been another 100. Young Aborigines are held in juvenile detention centres at a rate almost 50 times higher than other Australians.It is about time the Australian electorate realised that for all our ingrained concerns about race issues in this country, these factors—their health, their incarceration, their mortality, et cetera—are not because they are Aboriginal, are not because of their blood, are not because of their genetics. This is simply a fact that we see around the world. If I go to Brazil and I have a look at the fate of the Amazonian Indians, I will find the same situation—totally unrelated to the Australian Aboriginals. They are marginalised people who have had their country seized and essentially characterised by these unfortunate aspects of life expectancy.In Colombia, we see oil companies essentially raping the country at the moment. There have been articles about them. If we go to Japan, the Ainu will have the same characteristics because of the way in which they are marginalised in their society. If the member for Oxley and those around her talk about equity for people in this country, it is about time they recognised the clear deprivation of Aboriginal people in this country.509122:13:005091Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—Last Wednesday, with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), I was privileged to witness a tree planting service at the Keith Payne VC Park at Stafford in my electorate of Lilley. The deeds of the bravest Australian war heroes have been permanently implanted in the hearts and minds of the Lilley residents with this tree planting ceremony, honouring all 96 Australian Victoria Cross recipients.Local war hero and VC winner Keith Payne and South Australian Ted Kenna attended the ceremony and presented 96 memorial plaques and trees to honour the Australian brave VC recipients. The year 7 students from Stafford Heights and the Stafford state schools have been given the responsibility for carrying on the memory of their assigned heroes. They have researched the lives of the VC recipi ents, care for the memorial trees and wear their name badges on Remembrance Day. Last June I informed the House that I was part of a special commemorative service at the Keith Payne Park and saw the unveiling of the plaques to honour those men and women who received the VC in the Boer War, World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War.The Stafford Heights school captain, Matthew Butterworth, said:The tree memorial at Keith Payne Park has transformed the park into a special place that will hold long lasting memories for future generations.I feel greatly honoured to be in the company of Mr Payne and Mr Kenna today. I researched the history of the Victoria Cross and read accounts of the Vietnam War, and I realise how extremely tough and frightening it would be to be a soldier at war.I cannot imagine fully what it would have been like for all our soldiers who fought for our country, but Australia would not be the free country it is today if these men and women had not left home and family to risk their lives for us.The Stafford Heights school captain, Peter Baumann, went on to say:At a recent Stafford Heights ANZAC Day parade, our Principal, Mr Murray, reminded us that our links with our war veterans could be lost as our diggers passed this life.This is a concern to every one of us. These badges will be proudly displayed in our school foyer and will be proudly received by future students. In this way we will continue honouring our VC recipients.It is important to us to never forget the wars that our soldiers fought in because they fought for our country. So we think that the community links programme is a great concept for Stafford and Stafford Heights communities. We'd like to thank the RSL for giving us this opportunity.The Stafford State School captain, Jesse Parkes, said:I am lucky to live in this country and enjoy the sort of freedom of which other countries can only dream of.These men fought so hard for freedom that we take for granted. We are here today to remind ourselves of their sacrifices. Without the sacrifices of their lives, their family, and their youth, the freedom we enjoy today would not exist. To live in our own country without freedom would be unbearable. We hope by reading about their endeavours it will lead us to loyalty to our nation. The Victoria Cross recipients showed the ultimate loyalty by fighting for their nation.Finally, we are joining into a partnership with the RSL to look after Keith Payne Park. This is showing a public spiritedness by working together to give something to the public to use and enjoy.Stafford State School's other representative was Emily Carnell, and she spoke about Edward Kenna's bravery against the Japanese. She said:It is because of people like Mr Kenna that we live in a free country today. Mr Kenna, I thank you.This park stands for service to the community; it will serve the community just as the Victoria Cross recipients served their country in defence of freedom. This park is a place in which people can spend their leisure hours partaking in social and recreational activities. Such activities might not have been possible without the effort of these great men.As the federal member for Lilley, I would like to thank Mr Ken Ryley, the Kedron Wavell RSL sub-branch, Brisbane City councillor Jim Wilding and the students and teachers of the Stafford and Stafford Heights state schools for making the day such a success.509222:18:005092Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—It is an interesting situation that we have this evening with extra time for adjournment speeches as a consequence of what appears to be some slack time in government business. It is an interesting situation given that the government is now looking at about 1½ weeks more of sitting before, one presumes, they are going to call an early election. I ask myself as a member of this place, `What on earth has happened to their organisation that they are not able to organise their business efficiently enough to be able to occupy the time with government business before that time runs out?'I want to talk tonight about tax reform—a matter that many people are speaking about—and deal with three issues in particular: one is the reform of Commonwealth-State fiscal relations, a very important matter in relation to Western Australia; another is the question of reforming substantially the problem that occurs where moderate income earners now find themselves, because of fiscal drag or inflation, pushed into higher marginal tax rates through no fault of their own and are now paying, in many instances, tax rates that once were devised as part of our progressive tax system for people in higher income brackets; and the third is the opportunity of abolishing the wholesale sales tax and replacing it with a broad-based tax that will not increase the number of tax collectors in the country or, for that matter, increase the burdensome red tape and compliance for small businesses.Finally, I want to look at some means whereby PAYE taxpayers are relieved of their obligation to submit a tax return each year for a pittance in terms of a rebate. It obviously causes an enormous amount of work on their part, and an enormous amount of effort is expended on an exercise which, in effect, delivers only a very small net proceed to the Australian Taxation Office.I want to start with vertical fiscal imbalance. Western Australian taxpayers have been cheated of $778 million over the past five years in the effective return of their wealth generation from the Australian Commonwealth proceeds. This means that in my electorate the residents of Kinross still do not have a senior high school. It means that the residents of Mindarie still have to make do with a primary school campus—an experiment, a model one, a temporary campus—which probably would be considered to be a slum school if it were anywhere else.It also means that residents in Clarkson, Merriwa, Butler and elsewhere are unable to access effective efficient public transport sufficiently able to give them the flexibility to work and to entertain themselves or to enjoy the benefits of Perth life through effective travel. Also, in the Joondalup police district my constituents have, in effect, a police to citizen ratio four times inferior to areas elsewhere in the state.Looking at tax reform, we need to flatten marginal rates so that the people who are being dragged into higher rates of tax under our progressive tax system are not paying rates of tax that should be applicable to people on higher incomes. We also need to introduce a retail services tax to replace the wholesale sales tax—a tax that is levied at the point of delivery or sale for services or goods but with a similar system for the preceding processes to that of the wholesale sales tax. In other words, those involved in production or in manufacture have an exemption number that allows them to claim an exemption when purchasing goods and services that apply in the production process.Obviously, this government has not been able to deliver on its promise of reducing compliance and red tape by 50 per cent in its first term of government. In actual fact, that has increased. One of the reasons I am concerned about the government's tax reform proposals, when we get to see them, is that it is very hard to believe that any government would in effect be able to deliver a simplified tax system that reduces the paperwork and compliance for small businesses. For anyone on the coalition side to claim that more paperwork is going to be better for small business because it will introduce discipline to their paperwork is highly insulting and gratuitous in its scope. I can only urge the coalition to think very carefully before trying to pass off some sort of tax reform process on that basis. The reform of Australia's tax system is long overdue. All I can do is urge the coalition to think very carefully before it brings it forward. (Time expired)509322:23:005093Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—A couple of weeks ago, I attended a Green Corps graduation in the Blue Mountains. The 10 young graduates had been employed for six months at Wentworth Falls working with Intelife, Mission Employment. They had been involved in a range of hands-on environmental experiences—bush regeneration in a disused quarry site, protection of sensitive areas, design and construction of pathways, erosion control and the design and establishment of permaculture gardens.The graduation was an encouraging event. The enthusiasm of the 10 young people was quite contagious and their positive comments were very instructive. It was obvious that the six months had been a very valuable experi ence for them. Not only did it provide valuable work experience; it gave them a sense of achievement. They could point their finger at the results of their work and proudly say, `I did that.' It was a valuable esteem-raising program. For them all, it was a unique educational experience with the opportunity to learn a range of practical skills in environmental work. Some even spoke of it providing a new sense of direction and a clearer idea of further courses of study or careers to pursue.I put the success of that particular project down to two main things. Firstly, Green Corps is an excellent program. This government's allocation of $42 million over three years to employ 3,500 17- to 20-year-olds in this hands-on work is evidence of a dual commitment—a commitment to assisting our young people into valuable work and a commitment to environmental restoration. Already under this program 1,200 young people have participated in Green Corps programs. They have planted half a million trees, collected over 250 kilograms of native seed, built more than 100 kilometres of walking track and constructed over 100 kilometres of fencing. The Green Corps program is producing valuable, tangible environmental results. Last week's graduation was in fact the second in the mountains. Another project in my electorate—Hands Across the Catchment—is currently under way and another group is ready to begin in a month's time.Secondly, the success was also a credit to Intelife, a branch of Mission Employment. The Intelife project is an exciting one which, as I indicated, is involved in restoring a disused quarry site in Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountains. In so doing, it is revegetating what was a highly degraded area, thus stopping further erosion and the resulting sedimentation of local streams. It is also building a demonstration centre for environmentally sustainable technology. This includes solar powered, mud brick buildings, a natural sewage treatment process and a water reuse system. It involves the establishment of permaculture gardens. Further, it involves the construction of accommodation for disadvantaged young people.The Intelife project is a unique and exciting project. But the greatest asset of Intelife is its team—a group of caring, capable and committed leaders who provide quality educational experiences, valuable environmental work and strong personal support for the young people involved. The teary farewell speeches at the graduation were clear evidence of the close bonds formed and the esteem the graduates showed for the team leaders. I am pleased that this government has been able to assist Intelife in its work in the local environment and its valuable work with local young people.509422:27:005094Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—This evening I would like to make a few remarks about the passing of a stalwart of the Salvation Army in my area, Mr John Wright. His funeral was held today and, unfortunately, I was unable to be there owing to today's parliamentary sittings. His passing merits special mention because of his extraordinary experience and, I might say, because of the fact that he made such a tremendous contribution to the work of the Salvation Army in my district.John Wright was in his professional career an engineer, a successful man. Unfortunately, alcoholism became part of his life and he entered a hopeless phase of his life during which time his circumstances deteriorated to such an extent that he found himself in a bad state. At some stage, the work of the Salvation Army became a revelation to him and he turned his life around. John Wright then became a Salvation Army officer and he became a stalwart of the Salvation Army bridge program. He became an advocate of drug rehabilitation and counselling, and in particular an advocate in relation to alcoholism and drug abuse, to young people and to others alike. John Wright suffered in his final months terribly from his illness, and his work in the Salvation Army in our district will be sorely missed. I pass on my condolences to his widow, Eileen.The Salvation Army in my district performs a tremendous range of functions to the com munity. It is one of the few organisations that truly merits the respect and support of a vast number of our community. The Salvation Army is readily identifiable as one of those organisations that seems to be always present, always ready, always helpful in situations. Whether it be because someone has passed into a desperate phase in their life and needs assistance, whether it be because of a civil disaster or an emergency, whether it be the provision of emergency relief for families who are encountering stressful conditions or who are financially or otherwise disadvantaged, whether it be the provision of a range of youth and other activities and, more recently in my electorate's case, whether it be the provision of employment services, the Salvation Army is second to none in providing a sustained, consistent and available service to all in the community.I would like to commend those who assisted in the recent Red Shield Appeal in my district to raise a large amount of money once again to help the work of the Salvation Army. I might say that, in my electorate at the Heathridge Centre and the Merriwa Centre, there is a shortage of resources to provide essential services to families and emergency provisions to families who have found themselves in dire straits or who are unable to provide for themselves in the short term.In particular I would like to commend the work of Captain Neil Venables and Lieutenant Paul Hakely, who are in charge of the Heathridge Centre and the Merriwa Centre respectively. The Heathridge and Merriwa centres provide those services to an area containing one of the greatest concentrations of families raising young children in our country. Demographically, my electorate contains a majority of people below the age of 21. I am sure that that is not the case in other electorates.The state director of Red Shield Appeal, Arthur Jackson, is also to be commended for his efforts during the 1998 Red Shield Appeal. It is a fundraising exercise that enjoys the confidence and support of a large number of people in the community. I commend the work of the Salvation Army to all, and urge those in my electorate to support the 1999 appeal as much as possible to help make sure that we raise those valuable funds to ensure that the Salvation Army is able to continue providing those valuable services throughout our community.509522:31:005095Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to talk about some exciting things going on in the electorate of Dunkley concerning our young people. Like a number of other members that have spoken in this adjournment debate already, I was fortunate to attend the graduation ceremony for a number of work for the dole programs over the last fortnight. The really exciting thing about that is to see how the young people involved in those programs have seized the opportunity provided to them through the work for the dole program and made something quite substantial of it, not only for themselves but also for the local community. We launched the retail index that the young people involved in the work for the dole program had produced for Karingal, Frankston and Mornington, which was an important initiative given the large section of our economy that the retailing sector represents. That was a chance for young people to develop their marketing skills, to get involved with the local retailers, to present their ideas and information, to plan a project, to produce a document and to deal with its circulation. It was a worthwhile outcome and an example of how the local communities got right behind the work for the dole program to develop projects that are relevant to the local community and that bring young people in touch with employers in areas of genuine job opportunity.We also celebrated the completion of the natural environment enhancement project. There were a number of reserve areas in the Dunkley electorate where these young people seized the opportunity. They got involved in weed eradication, in transforming what was just bush into rather special parkland for the local community and in developing and improving the walking trail for the Sweetwater Creek Reserve, which I am quite familiar with. We witnessed in the last week a graduation ceremony that recognised those contributions. The graduation ceremony itself was planned and organised by those young people. They were very proud of what they had done, and they deserved to be.The really exciting thing was that more than half the people involved in the program have had very positive outcomes. There has been quite a turnover of participants in the program as young people have gained employment and as they have thought about their future lives and decided that they would pursue further studies either through a TAFE course or by returning to secondary education. They are really important outcomes for those young people. They are back on track, they are back making a useful plan for their lives and looking forward to a brighter future because of the work for the dole program. I congratulate all those young people. It is really exciting to see young people taking advantage of this opportunity and working with a local provider, Skillsplus, which is now a very significant participant in the jobs network.There are other things that have been going on for the youth of the Dunkley community. The youth health service that Dr Martin and the youth health forum in Frankston have been developing is something that I discussed with Dr Martin and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) during his recent visit to the Dunkley electorate. All are very interested in this project as a way of making sure that young people can gain access to the health services, counselling and support that they need so that they can get on with their lives. Many of the local general practitioners are also the family doctors and young people are a little reluctant to talk with the family doctor about some of their health concerns or troubles in their lives for fear of that information perhaps finding its way back to the family.Finally, I want to talk about the Padua College, a secondary school in the Dunkley electorate run by the Catholic education system. We celebrated 100 years of that college in the last fortnight. There was a eucharist service—a very exciting occasion. Again, we saw on that occasion all the splen dour of young people applying their skills and a desire to make a go of their lives.A lot of exciting things are happening for the young people of Dunkley. It is something that I am happy to be a part of and that I will continue to encourage within the electorate.509622:35:005096Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—Over the last few days, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) has made much of the Labor Party's decision to put the One Nation Party last on all its ballot tickets. He has continually paraded himself before the television cameras and in this chamber, proclaiming moral rectitude and a higher moral stance in his party than in other parties in Australia because he has decided to take this in-principle decision.If one were completely convinced of his stance, one would find it laudable. But the Labor Party has a tradition of operating in election mode in its own best interests and setting matters of principle to one side. We saw in the Lindsay by-election, for instance, the Labor Party being prepared, in order to gain an advantage, to trade with people who are considered by some to hold racist viewsIt is a tragedy if there is an inconsistency amongst our leaders. It is seen by the public for what it is. If Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, wishes to raise these matters, he should be able to point to a record of his personal consistency. One cannot compare the Labor Party between leaders because I do not think that is fair. Each leader puts his own stamp on the organisation. It is up to the leaders to be consistent in their application of moral principles.However, in the last couple of days a publication that appears to be from the Australian Labor Party has come into my hands. I wish to table it tonight and seek clarification from the Leader of the Opposition. Across the top of the page, it has `Turn your banned guns into something else.' On the left-hand side of the page there is a picture of an automatic military weapon. On the right-hand side, there is a picture of a hand filling in a ballot paper. The ballot paper has the heading `The next election.' At the top of the paper, One Nation, No. 1, has been filled in. Second on the paper is No. 2, Labor. At No. 3 is the National Party; fourth is the Liberal Party. Underneath it states `The Australian firearms payback.'I want the Leader of the Opposition to indicate whether this is a Labor Party publication by one of the branches or part of the Labor Party organisation. There is no doubt in my mind that the only group in Australia which could gain possible advantage by a publication of this sort that appeals to the pro-gun lobby would be the Australian Labor Party.An honourable member interjecting—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—It was not produced by me. There is the envelope that it arrived in. You put it to the AFP. You can do whatever you like with it. I am going to table it here tonight. I want a denial from the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else connected with the Australian Labor Party that this is not a stunt of the Australian Labor Party in sending out two messages. There is a moral rectitude message and there is a subterranean message for those with an alternative attitude to life whom the Australian Labor Party claims are worse than scum on the earth. They are sending a message to these people saying, `The Australian Labor Party understands the principles of One Nation and the pro-gun lobby.'It is an outrageous publication. It has my secretary's note on it. We received it in the mail today. It is dated 19 June, and it has no name on either it or the envelope. It says `For your information', and it has a signature on it. The Australian Labor Party can have it. I am going to put it on the table, and it can do what it likes with it. I want an absolute denial that it is not playing double games in this whole process leading up to the election.You can look at the envelope. It was posted somewhere in Victoria. You can look at it, and you can have the AFP look at it. It is a double game. If it is from the Australian Labor Party, we can understand the strength of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. His outrage at some of the things going on in Australia will be proven fake. The Australian Labor Party is playing a double game with the people of Australia. It is encouraging the people who have banned guns to put the Australian Labor Party second on their ballot paper. People are to vote No. 1 for the One Nation Party, No. 2 for the Australian Labor Party, No. 3 for the National Party and No. 4 for the Liberal Party. I repeat that the caption states `The Australian Firearms Payback'. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have looked at the third edition of Pettifer's Parliamentary Practice . On page 559, it appears that the requirement for leave to table a document applies to ministers other than in question time, a personal explanation or the making of a ministerial statement. Accordingly, I ask whether leave is granted for the tabling of the document.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Mitchell did not seek leave to table the document. He indicated during the speech that he would seek leave, but he never sought leave to table the document.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am just saying that leave is required. The honourable member for Mitchell, therefore, is seeking leave, because he said that he was going to table it.Leave not granted.509722:41:005097Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The speech that we have just had delivered by the member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) is an absolute disgrace. It says a lot more about the member for Mitchell than the issue which he brought up in the House tonight. Ever since the massacre at Port Arthur, the Labor Party, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) in particular, have gone out of their way to support the Liberal and National parties' attempts to tighten the gun ownership laws. The member for Mitchell has come into this House tonight and sought to slander the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party after we supported him in this parliament and in parliaments right across the country. It says a lot about the morality of the member for Mitchell that he would come into this House tonight and drop that bucket.It would be interesting to know who gave the member for Mitchell his orders to come into the House tonight and attempt to throw mud at the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party. That is what we would like to know. Who gave you your instructions to behave in such a low manner? Is it any wonder that they had to demote you from the whip of the Liberal Party to simply a parliamentary secretary. Actions like those portrayed tonight demonstrate why he is held in such low regard by his colleagues and us on this side of the House. The basic allegation of the member for Mitchell was that the Labor Party is playing a double game.0K6BARTLETTMr Bartlett—You always do.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Macquarie supports the member for Mitchell in his attempts to throw mud at the Labor Party after we have attempted to support the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in his gun ownership reforms. We note that the member for Macquarie is supporting the member for Mitchell in his statements in this House.The only party that I know is playing a double game on gun ownership is the party that has established a firearm owners branch of its political party. You tell me which party I am talking about. It is a party which has allowed a member of one of the coalition parties in the state parliament who represents an electorate not very far from the Australian Capital Territory to establish a gun owners branch of their party. Do you know which party I mean? I challenge the member for Mitchell to interject as soon as he recognises which party has been playing the double game. It is a party which has allowed one of its state members to recruit gun owners for its party so that it can seek to undermine the reforms that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have supported in this parliament.The one party that has been playing a double game has been the National Party of New South Wales. It has allowed the member for Monaro, Peter Cochran, to establish a firearm owners branch of the National Party. At the most recent state conference of the National Party in Orange, those members of that branch of the National Party sought to pressure the National Party to support a watering down of the Prime Minister's tightened gun ownership laws. If the member for Mitchell wants to come into this House and point the finger at any party that is trying to play a double game in the debate on firearm ownership laws, he should not point the finger at us. He should point the finger at his own coalition party, which has established a firearm owners branch.To come into the House tonight and to seek to slander the Leader of the Opposition after he has given bipartisan support to John Howard, the Prime Minister, in the reforms he introduced into this parliament two years ago says a great deal about the morality of the member for Mitchell and a great deal about the people who have given him instructions to come into this House tonight. Through you, Mr Speaker, we can say to the member for Mitchell that on every occasion that he seeks to come into this parliament and throw mud at the Leader of the Opposition on issues such as this we are going to hold him accountable. Every time the member for Mitchell and his supporters such as the member for Macquarie (Mr Bartlett) come into this chamber and seek to blackguard the name of the Leader of the Opposition we are going to hold them accountable. We will put in that extra effort in their electorates to make sure that their constituents understand the morality that they bring into the Australian parliament's House of Representatives. You will be held accountable for what you did tonight and you will deserve the opprobrium that you have earned.509822:46:005098Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I rise tonight to make a few points on behalf of my previous colleagues in the Department of Defence who take a commission, a Queen's commission, which is a very nebulous form of employment, and on behalf of those who sign on for various periods of time in the other ranks. It has always been a very tenuous situation. I believe that in today's litigious society we should perhaps be looking towards giving our defence members a more definitive employment contract. Labor laboured on for 13 years with burgeoning litigation and did not really solve the problem.I will give you an example. We have a number of diabetics in the RAAF who were diagnosed as diabetics after they were employed. Some are coming very close to their DFRDB retirement period and are being discharged because they have diabetes. One man who has voluntarily left was actually the armaments officer who defused live explosives that were delivered to the base by police or civil agencies who had discovered them live. He had the responsibility of defusing them, and yet he was found to be lacking and was discharged.It is a very one-way contract. It is at the Queen's pleasure, and there is not much that anyone can do about that. Yet the defence department can at will extend your employment. In certain circumstances, people have been kept in service, with very little compensation in some instances and in other instances quite clearly against their wishes. So it is something that we need to look at. In a recent survey, using my Family Income Analyser I worked out for a woman who happened to be married to a serving member that with her family make-up it really was not worth her husband being promoted. So we still have a way to go. I would like to see us working some way towards a very definitive employment contract for our defence personnel.Further to that, also around my electorate, on this year's great polly peddle, I did a lot of work with youth in the area. It is quite clear to me that drug use is quite prevalent amongst many of our youth. Sadly, there are some parents who are ignorant of the extensive use of drugs by their children. They feel that they are in an awkward position to discuss the issue with their children, simply because they just do not know enough about it. They are not sure what THC is or means today. They do not know what an eccy is. They probably have a vague idea of what a bong is but certainly not how it comes in today's packaging. There are also a lot of myths about marijuana and other drug use, and parents are unable to dispel their children's perceptions of it, because they have not discussed it with their children or they do not know what their children's understanding of drug use is.In order to combat that, I am in the process of organising an information day for parents in my electorate where they can find out about all the drugs that may be confronting their children today, get the true facts on them and open up some dialogue with their children in which they can properly direct and give their children some sort of guidance on the issue so that the children are better able to just say no.A particularly critical time, when drug pushers target children, is when the children are moving from grade 6 into high school. As they move from being big fish in a little pond to being little fish in a big pond, they are very vulnerable to drug pushers who quite frequently today happen to be in school uniform. Parents have to know about this vulnerable stage, and they have to know what the facts are and how to discuss the issues with their children. With the support of the Panthers Leagues Club and Darren McMahon, a youth worker with a Penrith Christian church, I am looking forward to getting that seminar up and operating in Lindsay some time in September-October for the information of parents in our area.509922:51:005099Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I want to make some comments about the issues the member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) has tried to raise concerning the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the One Nation Party. I think that my colleague the shadow minister for health, the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) did a very good job in countering him on the guns issue, but if we are going to talk about the One Nation Party and the issue of standards and double standards, we cannot go past the tremendous double standards of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard).It is very interesting that, following what happened in Queensland, the Prime Minister was roundly condemned by all the editorials in this country for the way in which he has handled this whole matter. At best, you have to say that what the Prime Minister has done in relation to One Nation and the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has been a monumental incompetence. If you look at his handling of it, it has obviously been a double strategy, a situation in which the Prime Minister—before he was elected; when he became Leader of the Opposition—went around the country saying that he now believed in multiculturalism, that he now believed in giving everybody a fair go, and that he regretted his earlier views in 1988 about race and immigration. The member for Mitchell would know quite a lot about that because he was the shadow minister at the time.What we heard from the Prime Minister before the last election was that he regretted all those views and he changed his position. Then, after the election, what did we have? When the member for Oxley made her first speech, he did not call her deranged, he did not say that her views were wrong, he did not say that there were any problems with her views. No, he said the only thing he could say at that time was that she had an absolute right to say what she wanted and it was about time somebody started talking in this way. That is all he had to say. As a result of that, a whole pandora's box has been opened up.If you think that it is just a question of the Prime Minister's own standards, it is much more than that because it has done very serious damage to this country. It has done damage to this country in a number of ways not only internationally but also within our society. I have a lot of dealings with a lot of the ethnic communities in this country, and at many of the ethnic functions that I have been going to recently people from a number of ethnic backgrounds have not been coming up and saying, `We just disagree with the Prime Minister.' They have been saying, `For the first time in many years, we feel worried, afraid and concerned about our position in this country.' They say, `For the first time in many years, we are concerned that we are no longer going to be treated as equal citizens in this country, that there is a movement which is increasingly directed against us, directed against the values and ideas of equality and fairness in relation to this country.'That was what the multicultural policy was all about. It was about fair and equal treatment. It was about treating people in an equal way, irrespective of their cultural, ethnic and racial background. That is what it was all about. There was a failure of leadership by the Prime Minister in relation to this matter and, as a result, we now have this ultra-conservative movement which has in fact been propounding ideas and views which have frightened people from ethnic backgrounds. That is what has happened.Instead of the Prime Minister nipping this in the bud—he did not do that—he allowed it to flower. Suddenly it has come around and it has hurt the conservative parties, especially the Liberal Party, and what does he say? `Maybe we were wrong then. Maybe we should have done something more.' It is a bit too late after the horse has bolted, is it not? The situation now is that the Prime Minister regrets his earlier non-action in this matter.The reality is that now we have a very serious problem in this country which we did not have to have. It is because of what has happened as a result of the Prime Minister's inactivity, as a result of the Prime Minister trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, he was trying to say to the ethnic communities that he supports multiculturalism but he was trying to say to the rest of Australia that, in fact, he is against multiculturalism and that he is against the ethnic community. (Time expired)510022:56:005100Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—Don't you just love Labor? They really get off on saying one thing and doing another. Check out their form on the airport. Remember that—Sydney West airport? `Let's pick a site in the heart of Lindsay and then, on 2 March 1996 when we lose Lindsay, let's backflip, double flip and go round and find the most politically opportunist way that we could possibly act on this issue.' Give me a break!Eileen Cammack, our leading Liberal light in the area opposed that airport from when it was even remotely suggested all through her time in council many years ago. Anne Cohen fought that airport. As the Liberal member in Minchinbury she was a lone voice in the wilderness against people who were abusing her for protecting her own property interests in that area. Our own councillors—Leonie Jackson, Robin Wiles and Jim Aitken—have turned round Penrith City Council's views on the airport since we were elected in 1996. After all that we suddenly have a movement in western Sydney against the airport. But, guess what, it is so far after the original decision was made that we are sitting here playing catch-up. I have had to encourage the government to get the second EIS on the rails and to have another look at Labor's disastrous decision.You can see something similar with the Lakes scheme. The decision on the Lakes scheme that is going on in Penrith was made years ago under a state Labor government. Suddenly, when it is impacting on people, Labor on council is out there trying to curry favour and grab votes by saying, `Oh, oh, we are terribly sorry. Isn't it dreadful?' Well, you made the decision. What about the `toaster' down there in Sydney? You suddenly want $200 million of taxpayers' funds to fix up your stuff-up after you made the decision. Now we have to come along and fix it up.Look at the ADI site. There is state Labor planning minister Craig Knowles going hammer and tongs in favour of development. On council they want to get the politically opportunist spin on this and say, `Oh, it's not our decision. We'll lead the charge with the ADI residents action group.' The people of western Sydney are not that stupid. They have woken up to Labor. They have woken up to Labor's double standards of saying one thing and doing another: saying they are going in one direction and walking in another. They can talk the talk, but they never ever walk the walk. They have not gone the distance in western Sydney. After 13 years of Labor it is the most neglected area of Sydney. Yet they sit there and expect their solid grassroots dyed-in-the-wool Labor voters to still support them. They had very good reason to defect—to the Liberal Party.But we intend to keep them in Lindsay because we are doing things for the area. We are acting, we are supporting their interests and we are listening to their concerns—listening to their aggravation that they can no longer get ahead. They are sitting there working 66-hour weeks for 10 cents in the dollar. That is their concern. Meanwhile, while they are working so hard, they see money being chucked off to this action group and over to this special interest group and over to this union group. They are fed up with that. They want someone who is going to deal with their mainstream issues, and that happens to be me. That is why I am in this parliament representing the people of Lindsay.We will make sure for the people of Lindsay that we do not end up with an airport in our backyard. There will be a much more honest decision than any people had from the Labor Party. It will be consistent, it will be considered and it will be rational. We will be making the right decision by the people of Lindsay. I caution anyone who even remotely thinks of changing their vote on the airport issue to think about what Labor has offered. What did Labor really do over the protestations of the member for Chifley (Mr Price), the member for Fowler (Mr Grace) and the member for Greenway (Mr Mossfield)? Nothing, because they made a decision in the arrogance and isolation of leadership and went ahead with it. We have consulted with the community and we have listened to the people.51015101Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Before the House adjourns, I extend, on behalf of all the people of New England, my sympathy to the widow and family of the late Don Barwick. Don Barwick was a former Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, a very distinguished member of the United Farmers and woolgrowers association and a very successful farmer. His loss will be felt by all in New England and all who knew him. On behalf of everybody in rural Australia, I would like to extend to his family my own deep personal sympathy.23:00:005101House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices5101The following notices were given:Mrs Gallus to present a bill for an act to impose a curfew and related restrictions on aircraft movements at Adelaide Airport, and for related purposes.Mr Neville to move:That this House:(1) notes with concern the plight of Australian pork producers;(2) calls for an inquiry into the structures, marketing, domestic pricing and exporting of pork;(3) draws the attention of government to the need for an efficent and effective dedicated pork abattoir and processing sector; and(4) in commending the Government for industry aid given thus far, seeks access to sustenance and carry-on finance for farmers experiencing economic hardship during this period of adjustment.)Mr Zammit to move:That the House is of the opinion that, in order to restore the confidence of ordinary Australians in the processes of Government, Ministers who have any direct or indirect interest in a trust or nominee company should not be permitted to take part in Cabinet or other consideration of taxation or industry policy or administration.Documents5101The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 June 1998:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Proposal 1998 No. 12.Charter of the United Nations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 123.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Exemptions 1998 Nos. CASA 20, CASA 21.Instruments 1998 Nos. CASA 202, CASA 204, CASA 207.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notices pursuant to section 45—Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited.Sydney Airports Corporation Limited.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 128.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B 1998 Nos. 21, 22, 23.Export Market Development Grants Act—Determination 1998 No. 1/BDD. Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 121.Financial Management and Accountability Act—Financial Management and Accountability Orders Amendment 10 June 1998Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 122.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 125.Health Insurance Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 124.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Declaration 1998 Heritage Conservation Rebate (Recognised Heritage Register and Recognised Heritage Body) No. 1.Notice under section 159UD—Heritage conservation rebate maximum approval limit 2 June 1998.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 129.Life Insurance Act—Commissioner's Rules Nos. 31, 32.Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 130.Native Title Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 120.Parliament Act—Parliamentary Zone—Outline for the introduction of parking restrictions at East Block carpark.Outline for the introduction of parking restrictions at West Block western car park access road.Proposal to—Construct an international flag display on the Lake Burley Griffin foreshore.Erect identification signs and undertake minor roadworks in front of old Parliament House.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and National Residue Survey (Ratite Slaughter) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 127.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Live-stock Transactions Levy Act, Live-stock (Producers) Export Charges Act, National Residue Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats Transactions) Levy Act, National Residue Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats Export) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 126.Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing 1 July 1998 as the date on which the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997, except Part 1, shall come into operation.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. SESROB 35, SESROB 36, SESROB 37, SESROB 38, SESROB 39, SESROB 40, SESROB 41, SESROB 42.Radiocommunications Act—Determination 1998 Radiocommunications (Trading Rules for Spectrum Licences).Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Notices 1998 No. 3, 4.Sales Tax Assessment Act—Rulings Nos. SST 10, SST 11.Student and Youth Assistance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 132.Superannuation Act 1976—Declaration—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 131.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation 1998 No. 4.Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 119.Taxation Administration Act—Rulings Nos. TR 97/2 (addendum), TR 98/9.Telecommunications Act 1997—Determination under section 51 1998 No. 1.Termination Payments Tax Imposition Act—Determination No. SCD 98/4 (addendum).Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments 1998 Nos. 37, 38.Answers to Questions in Writing5103The following answers to questions were circulated:5103(Question No. 1725)17255103Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 15 May 1997:(1) Further to the former Minister's answer to part (2) of question No. 1049 (Hansard , 12 February 1997, page 863), is the Minister now able to provide additional information on the alleged customs scam; if so, what.(2) Further to his answer to part (3) of question No. 1049 (a), what have been the results of the investigation carried out in relation to the alleged importation of 60 vehicles by a multi-millionaire and (b) has or will anyone be charged in relation to this matter; is so, who; if not why not.5103Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The case concluded on 14 May 1998 when the NSW Magistrates Court accepted a Deed of Settlement between Customs and two of the defendants. $27,000 was the total of fines and costs and the 696,000 cigarettes were condemned and will be destroyed.(2) (a) The investigation examined the circumstances of 18 imported vehicles, not 60, but finally centred on certain aspects concerning 2 particular vehicles. Testing of the evidence obtained from the investigation of those 2 vehicles concluded that it was insufficient to sustain action against any person. Additionally, a dispute remains unresolved between the importer and the Australian Customs Service about the applicability of a Customs by-law whereby duty on 4 cars was claimed as "free" by the importer. This matter is the subject of an on-going exchange of commentaries between the parties to the dispute and is not defined by Customs as an investigation. The balance of the vehicles is of no interest to Customs.(2) (b) See the answer to (a).5103(Question No. 2375)23755103Cameron, Eoin, MPMr Eoin Cameron6V5StirlingLP10 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 October 1997:Will the Australian Taxation Office pay refunds in cash: if not, (a) why not and (b) will it consider paying cash refunds to persons who do not have bank accounts into which they can deposit cheques.5103Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:No, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will not pay refunds in cash.(a) Taxation refunds are issued in accordance with Finance Regulation 68(1) which provides for payment by cheque, direct credit or Australian Government Credit Card.(b) No, consistent with Finance Regulation 68(1), the ATO will not pay cash refunds to persons who do not have bank accounts. However, the ATO is willing to assist a person in such circumstances to have their refund cheque exchanged for cash by a financial institution.5103(Question No. 2673)26735103Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) How many persons have been prosecuted for making false statements under provisions of the Migration Act with respect to misuse of the so-called $30 work visa.(2) How many migration agents or other promoters colluding in the misuse of $30 work visas have been prosecuted.(3) How many migration agents (a) have been, or (b) are to be, charged or (c) disciplined by the Migration Agents Registration Board in relation to the misuse of $30 work visas.(4) How many cases of misuse of $30 work visas has his Department referred to the Australian Federal Police.(5) Has he been advised on how to prevent the misuse of $30 work visas.5103Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I believe the `so-called $30 work visa' colloquially refers to the application fee payable by persons not in immigration detention who lodge Protection Visa applications.There are several nationalities which demonstrate high levels of protection visa application with low levels of grant of protection, indicating a pattern of abuse. For example, out of 2,231 protection visa applications from nationals of the Philippines concluded at primary level in 1996-97, 3 visas were granted. Similarly, 9 protection visas were granted to Indonesian nationals out of 1,976 applications concluded, while 52 protection visas were granted to nationals of the People's Republic of China out of 2,285 applications concluded. Out of 440 applications concluded from Fijians, and 414 from Tongans, none were granted protection visas.Under the arrangements put in place by the previous Government, there were substantial processing delays for applicants at both primary and review levels. These delays create an incentive for non-citizens to lodge unfounded applications in order to extend their stay in Australia. The current Government has tightened considerably the access of protection visa applicants to work and welfare benefits while awaiting the outcome of their applications, and has accelerated processing of applications considerably. There are still options for further reducing incentives to lodge unfounded protection visa applications, and the Government will review them.The appropriate sanction applied to asylum seekers whose claims for protection are unsubstantiated is removal from Australia as their existing visas expire. Prosecution is not normally considered effective, as the cost to the taxpayer is very high, the sentences obtained are often minimal and the whole exercise only serves to delay the claimant's departure from Australia.(2) From the inception of the Migration Agents Registration Scheme until its closure on 21 March 1998, twenty-four migration agents or unregistered migration agents have been convicted or found guilty without recording a conviction. Three of the convictions included offences such as making a false instrument, or forging Commonwealth documents. The Department does not have specific records of whether each breach related to collusion in misuse of protection visa arrangements.(3) During the period of operation of the Migration Agents Registration Scheme, 11 migration agents had their registration cancelled, 18 were suspended and a further 18 were cautioned for breaches of the code of conduct or other matters. The Department has not kept records of Migration Agents Registration Board prosecutions specifically associated with protection visa applications.(4) The Department conducts its own investigations of breaches of the Migration Act 1958 and prepares briefs for the Director of Public Prosecutions. While it therefore does not refer cases to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for investigation, it cooperates with the AFP in investigations requiring search and arrest. (5) Yes, and action has been taken. For example, the Migration Act 1958 has been amended to restrict access to work rights associated with protection visa applications. These changes, which commenced on 1 July 1997, restrict access to work rights and as a result Medicare, to those protection visa applicants who have been in Australia for less than 45 days in the past 12 months at time of application. By limiting access to work and Medicare the incentive to put in a frivolous protection visa application, simply in order to access these benefits, is significantly reduced.The Department is also acting against agents who abuse the Protection Visa process by lodging frivolous or bogus applications on behalf of their clients. As an example of this ongoing action, an unregistered migration agent was recently arrested and charged with offences under the Migration Act 1958. The matter will come to Court shortly.My Department's ability to deal quickly and effectively with immigration fraud will be considerably enhanced by the measures contained in Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1997 currently before the Parliament. These proposed amendments to the Migration Act 1958, further streamline the cancellation of visas granted on the basis of false or fraudulent information.5104(Question No. 2682)26825104Dondas, Nick, MPMr Dondas5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Will the Minister provide a breakdown of expenditure, including the purposes for which items of expenditure were used, for the sum of $2 743 209 listed as an operating expense for corporate services in the report of the Northern Land Council (NLC) for 1995-96.(2) Will the Minister provide similar information for 1996-97.(3) Was there a corporate services outlay in 1994-95; if not, why not.(4) What sum has been allocated for corporate services in 1997-98.(5) Will the Minister provide a breakdown of expenditure for the sums of (a) $515 049 for 1995-96 and (b) $1 123 747 for 1994-95 listed in respective NLC reports as an operating expense for legal services.(6) How many lawyers are on the permanent staff of the Northern Land Council.(7) What was the outlay for legal expenses in 1996-97. (8) What sum has been allocated by the NLC for legal expenses in 1997-98.(9) What was the at-cost vale of motor vehicles held by the NLC in 1996-97.(10) Will the Minister provide a complete inventory of motor vehicles held by the NLC and to whom they are registered.(11) What daily rate of travel allowance is payable to the (a) Chairman, (b) Director, (c) executive and (d) staff of the NLC.(12) Are consultants to the NLC entitled to travel allowance; if so, at what daily rate.(13) What was the purpose of the Canada trip for which an outlay of $9000 was listed in the NLC's report for 1995-96.(14) What was the purpose of the trip.(15) Who went on the trip.(16) Of what duration was the trip.(17) What daily travel allowance was payable to those who went on the trip.(18) Did members of the NLC take overseas trips in 1996-97; if so, in each case (a) what was the destination, (b) who went, (c) for what purpose and (d) what was the cost.(19) What was the purpose of the outlays of (a) $400 listed as Geneva and (b) $432 928 listed as Mabo-native title in the NLC's report for 1995-96 and were there expenditures on each item in 1996-97; if so, in each case, (i) what sum and (ii) for what purpose.(20) What is the annual cost of the full-time Kakadu Board executive/secretary and which organisation is responsible for funding the position.(21) What sum has been spent on the position since its establishment in June 1995.(22) What portion of the sum referred to in part (21) was provided by the NLC.(23) What were the establishment costs of the position and what portion was borne by the NLC.(24) What are the ongoing costs of the position, including salary, administrative costs, camping allowance, travel allowance and mobile phone payments for (a) 1994-95, (b) 1995-96, (c) 1996-97 and (d) 1997-98.(25) What was the membership of the Aboriginal Consultative Committee which was involved in drafting a submission for the Kakadu Board of Management and does the committee still exist.(26) What sum did the NLC spend on the committee, including salaries, administrative costs and camping and travel allowances.(27) What sum did the NLC spend on consultants in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98. (28) When and for what purpose was each consultant engaged.(29) What sum will the NLC spend on consultants in 1998-99.5105Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) and (2) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(3) The Northern Land Council outlaid funds on corporate services in 1994/95, however for purposes of financial reporting, the Northern Land Council utilised heads of expenditure at page 72 (Note 5) of its 1994/95 Annual Report, which did not disclose the aggregated costs of corporate services.(4) Within the sums under the heads of expenditure approved by the Minister for 1997/98 for the Northern Land Council, an amount of $2,953,000 is approved by the Minister for expenditure on corporate services.(5) and (6) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(7) At page 68 (note 5) of its Annual Report for 1996/97, the Northern Land Council disclosed that it had expended $982,703 on legal costs.(8) The estimate of legal expenditure by the Northern Land Council for 1997/98 is $1,305,000.(9) At page 70 (note 10) of its Annual Report for 1996/97, the Northern Land Council disclosed that it held motor vehicles at cost of $1,377,922 as at 30 June 1997.(10) and (11) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(12) Whether consultants to the Northern Land Council are entitled to travel allowance and, if so, at what daily rate, are questions for private negotiation between the Northern Land Council and each consultant. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(13) to (28) The Minister does not require reporting by the Northern Land Council at this level of detail. ATSIC has requested this information from the Northern Land Council.(29) Until the Northern Land Council has submitted its estimates of expenditure bid with the Minister for 1998/99, the sum the Northern Land Council seeks to expend on consultants during that year, if any, is not known. 5106(Question No. 2690)26905106Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Is it a fact that Airservices Australia is reducing the number of firefighters deployed at Australian airports to fewer than 500 breaching an agreement with the Firefighters Union that set a minimum of 595; if so, is he able to say whether a meeting of airport firefighters has passed a motion of no confidence in Airservices Australia's management as a result.5106Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has advised that the Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS) requires the flexibility to vary the number of staff, within the enterprise agreement, according to the fluctuating cycle of station reclassification, recruitment and natural attrition. As a result, a new agreement has been negotiated which was certified by the AIRC during May 1998.The new enterprise agreement establishes appropriate flexibility in relation to staffing numbers both within individual stations and globally. It does not mandate any global staff number.5106(Question No. 2780)27805106Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 March 1998:(1) Are the source and intent of advertisements placed in the Army newspaper checked by the Australian Defence Force (ADF); if so, how.(2) Were advertisements lodged by Fynwest Pty Ltd for the 30 October 1997 and 13 November 1997 editions of Army checked; if so, (a) with what outcome and (b) was his office advised; if so, (i) by whom and (ii) what was discussed.(3) Did the ADF permit Fynwest Pty Ltd to use its property for conducting recruiting meetings; if so, (a) when, (b) where, (c) on whose authority and (d) was his office advised; if so, (i) when and (ii) by whom.(4) Was leave approved for serving members of the ADF to enable them to go to Dubai in December 1997 to train as stevedoring workers; if so, (a) which serving members were given leave, (b) what kind of leave was involved in each case, (c) who approved the leave in each case and (d) in each case did the approving officer discuss the application for leave with a superior officer or theMinister's office; if so, (i) when and (ii) with whom.(5) Has he initiated inquiries to determine whether the approval of leave involved the breach of ADF regulations in any case; if so, (a) with what outcome and (b) what action did he take as a result.5106McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The relevant guidelines for the Army newspaper are contained in Chapter 7 of Volume 3 of the Army Manual of Personnel Administration. Paragraph 16 of which states:"716. Advertisements. The editor is responsible that all advertisements accepted comply with relevant legislation and policy directives issued by the Chief of Personnel from time to time. He is to ensure that the format and wording of advertisements do not indicate or imply that the advertiser has official Army sponsorship for his product or service. The Director of Legal Services—Army (DALS-A) advice is to be sought when considered necessary. Due to the time factor involved in the production of the newspaper the editor is to allow maximum time for any legal examination and DALS-A is to give priority to such examination. When in doubt the editor is to seek guidance from the Director General of Public Information."(2) Yes.(a) As the advertisements conformed with the guidance they were published.(b) No.(i) (ii) Not applicable.(3) Yes.(a) 14 November 1997.(b) Oakleigh Barracks, Victoria.(c) The Barracks Commander.(d) No.(i) (ii) The Minister was later advised in an Army Brief on 11 December 1997.(4) Yes.(a) 36 full-time ADF personnel have been identified as being involved in Dubai stevedoring training. Only one of those continues to serve in the Permanent Forces.11 Army Reserve personnel have been identified as being involved in Dubai stevedoring training. Reserve members are part-time employees and there are less stringent conditions relating to taking leave. However, 5 members notified their unavailability to parade which included notification of overseas travel.Of the 36 members in the permanent forces, the breakdown is as follows:Australian Regular ArmyArmy Reserve7x Warrant Officer Class 11x Captain16x Warrant Officer Class 21x Warrant Officer Class 11x Staff Sergeant5x Warrant Officer Class 23x Sergeant1x Sergeant4x Corporal1x Corporal3x Lance Corporal1x Lance Corporal1x Private1x PrivateTotal:35Total:11Royal Australian Air Force1 x Leading AircraftmanTotal: 1The personnel came from the following units around Australia:ADF Recruiting Unit—- Melbourne1ADF Recruiting Unit- Sydney2Army Logistics Training Centre- Portsea3Command and Staff College- Portsea1Defence Centre- Perth3Directorate of Military Engineering (Army)- Melbourne7Headquarters 13 Brigade- Perth1Perth Logistics Battalion—- Perth1Royal Australian Ordnance Corps- Bandiana1School of Armour—- Puckapunyal1Special Air Service Regiment- Perth12nd Commando Company- Mosman12nd Combat Engineer Regiment- Enoggera44th Brigade Admin Support Battalion- Oakleigh South14th/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse- Macleod25th/7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment- Liverpool15th Combat Engineer Regiment- Penrith110th Terminal Regiment (Transport)- Mosman213th Field Squadron- Perth1301 Base Wing (RAAF)- Orchard Hills1(b) Various combinations of Recreation Leave, Long Service Leave and Leave Without Pay were granted to Permanent Force personnel.(c) Commanding Officers in the Permanent Forces approve recreation leave and, in Army, leave without pay for up to 12 months and may support members requests for long service leave, which are approved in the Financial Conditions Branch in Canberra.(d) (i) (ii) No requests for absence were discussed with the Minister or his office. In 9 cases some consultation occurred within the lower levels of the command structure. The earliest consultations took place in late 1997. (5) Yes.(a) Legal advice has been taken which indicates that in the case of a member on pre-discharge leave there would be no breach.In the case of leave of absence—A member who is required to return to duty following leave would not be in breach of the obligation imposed by s.45 of the Defence Act during the first three months of the contract. If recalled to duty he could give one day's notice and return to active duty. Once the three month period has passed and the need arose to give a week's notice lawfully to terminate the contract, there may well be an inconsistency with the member's obligation under the Defence Act, depending on how quickly he could be required to return to duty. Even then, it is possible for the member to abandon the private employment without giving notice. In that case, he might be subject to legal action by the company for damages or the company might, pursuant to clause 10.3 (of the AWA), simply treat the contract as at an end.(b) No action was necessary.5108(Question No. 2781)27815108Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 23 March 1998:(1) Will the transfer from Australian National (Track Access) to the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) be a straight transformation of business under industrial law.(2) Will existing employees be able to continue their employment with the ARTC.(3) Will the Government use the transfer from one Commonwealth organisation to another to reduce conditions of employment; if not, will the Government undertake to maintain existing conditions of service.(4) Will the Government sell the ARTC.(5) Has the Government informed the South Australian Government that it will maintain operations at Port Augusta; if so, will it maintain the operations.5108Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the ARTC will be a successor to part of the business of the former AN.(2) Staffing needs of the ARTC are currently being determined.(3) AN awards will transmit and provide the basis of the no disadvantage test in setting terms and conditions of employees of the ARTC. For those employees transferred to the ARTC, accrued entitlements will be preserved and service will be considered continuous. Future conditions of service are a matter for the ARTC Board to determine with employees in negotiation of Australian Workplace Agreements or a new Certified Enterprise Agreement.(4) The Government has no plans to sell the ARTC.(5) The Government made a commitment that the national track company, the ARTC, will be based in South Australia. The ARTC is headquartered in Adelaide and has train control staff in Port Augusta. The ARTC made a commitment to the South Australian Government that the Port Augusta train control would not be moved while viable. It has no plans to close these operations at Port Augusta.5108(Question No. 2820)28205108Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) What sums did the (a) Defence Housing Authority (DHA) and (b) Department of Defence spend on legal costs and disbursements for an action in the High Court involving the DHA and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of New South Wales in relation to four houses leased to the DHA.(2) What sum in rental per week is the (a) DHA paying the owners and (b) Department of Defence paying the DHA for each house.(3) Is there a shortage of houses for ADF personnel in the Sydney area; if so, (a) how many units of accommodation are required and (b) where are they required.(4) Are any of the houses referred to in part (1) vacant; if so, (a) how many, (b) when does the DHA anticipate each will be occupied again by ADF personnel and (c) what is the remaining duration of the lease in each case.(5) Did the High Court find that houses leased by the DHA from private sector owners were subject to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act (NSW) and the jurisdiction of the NSW Residential Tenancies Tribunal.(6) Did the Residential Tenancies Tribunal order that the owners be allowed to inspect, and be provided with keys for, the properties; if so, on what date.(7) Has the ADF advised the DHA that houses will be returned to it; if so, on what date in each case.(8) Does the ADF recognise the need to comply with relevant State legislation in relation to houses occupied by ADF personnel in New South Wales.(9) Have owners and occupants of DHA-leased houses been advised that relevant State legislation applies; if not, why not; if so, (a) when and (b) how was the information supplied.5108Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The action in the High Court was in relation to the constitutional issue of whether the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of New South Wales, established under State laws, had jurisdiction over the Defence Housing Authority (DHA), a body established under Commonwealth law. The action commenced in April 1996. It was important for the DHA to clarify whether its leasings of properties from investors were subject to State tenancy laws, which regulate landlord-tenant relationships.(a) The DHA spent $91,854 on legal costs and disbursements on the action, which was instituted on the basis of legal advice that it had constitutional immunity from State laws.(b) The Department of Defence incurred no costs in relation to the action.(2) (a) In the case of two of the four properties referred to, the DHA is paying the owner a gross rental of $450.21 per week for each property; in the other two cases the gross rent being paid is $471.89 per week for each property before deductions for any repair or management costs.(b) The Department of Defence is paying the DHA rentals of $450.21 for each of the first mentioned properties, and $471.89 per week for each of the second mentioned properties.(3) (a) (b) The numbers of houses provided are well matched to the requirements of ADF personnel in Sydney, although there is some turnover due to expiring leases or the need to upgrade homes from time to time.(4) Yes.(a) 3(b) In accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act (NSW) 1987, the DHA has made application to the NSW Residential Tenancies Tribunal concerning maintenance and tenant's rights to quiet enjoyment of their homes. Pending the outcome of this application, the DHA is unable to make judgements about its possible future use of the properties.(c) The unexpired period of each lease is about 4 1/2 years in two cases and about 5 years in the other two cases.(5) Yes.(6) Yes. Orders by consent were made on 18 September 1997 by the NSW Residential Tenancies Tribunal.(7) Yes. On 15 October 1997, one Service advised DHA that a house would be handed back on vacancy. On 31 October 1997, another Service advised that there was no intention to reallocate the other three properties which would be returned to DHA upon vacancy.(8) Yes.(9) (a) (b) All ADF occupants were advised in the DHA's Spring 1997 newsletter. The Authority does not provide legal or commercial advice to owners of properties leased to the DHA, as the parties are in a commercial transaction.5109(Question No. 2837)28375109Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 1 April 1998:(1) By what administrative or legislative measures and to what extent has the number of local government bodies been increased or decreased in a State or Territory since the answer to question No 42 (Hansard , 28 June 1996, page 3199).(2) What changes have there been to the configuration of voluntary regional organisations of councils and the size of their populations since the answer.5109Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SomlyayZT4FairfaxLPMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The number of local governing bodies in each State and the Northern Territory as at April 1998 is shown in the table below.March 95*May 96**April 98New South Wales178178178Victoria787878Queensland156156156South Australia12412475Western Australia142142142Tasmania292929Northern Territory646868Total771775726 * number of local governing bodies as at answer to question No.221 (Hansard , 10 May 1995, page 281)** number of local governing bodies as at answer to question No.42 (Hansard , 28 June 1996, page 3199) In the period between May 1996 and April 1998, changes in the number of local governing bodies occurred in South Australia and the Northern Territory only.In South Australia, structural reform during 1996-97 reduced the number of councils from 124 to 75. Mergers were voluntary against a background of State Government policy to reduce the number of councils under the auspices of South Australian Local Government Reform Board which recommended amalgamation proposals for Ministerial approval.The Local Government (Boundary Reform) Act 1995 (S.A.) (amending the Local Government Act 1934 (S.A.)) was assented to by the Governor of South Australia in Executive Council on 21 December 1995. Under the provisions of the amended Local Government Act 1934 (S.A.), the South Australian Minister for Local Government can accept, reject or refer back the Board's report. If the Board's report is accepted by the Minister, the proposal recommended by the Board is forwarded to the Governor for the making of a Proclamation.In the Northern Territory, one new local governing body was declared and one council deregistered with no net change to the total number of local governing bodies.The Aboriginal community of Arltarlpilta (formerly the Atitjere Homelands AboriginalCorporation, Harts Range) was declared as a local governing body in October 1997, pursuant to section 3 of the Commonwealth Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995. This followed a request to the Federal Minister from the Northern Territory Minister for Local Government for the declaration.The Yulara Town Council (incorporating the Ayers Rock (Uluru) Resort community) was deregistered by the Northern Territory Minister in late 1997 under the Ayers Rock Resort (Sales) Act 1997 (N.T.). This followed a decision in November 1997 by the Northern Territory Government to sell the Resort to General Property Trust.(2) In May 1996, there were 52 Voluntary Regional Organisations of Councils (VROCs) across all States covering about 54 per cent of all councils and 57 per cent of the population of Australia.Since May 1996, one VROC has been established in Victoria while in South Australia it is too early to identify the resultant VROC structure following the structural reform processes. In New South Wales, ten local government bodies have withdrawn from the VROC structure.The following table provides State by State details of percentage coverage of councils and population by VROCs.State and No. of VROC's in 1998% of councils covered 5/96% of councils covered 4/98% of population covered, 5/96% of population covered, 4/98New South Wales (19)89769593Queensland (7) 54* 52*6878Western Australia(9)31364043South Australia (**)83**75**Tasmania (4)90938698Victoria (1)41814ACT/NT(0)0000AUSTRALIA (40***)5454***5753**Table based on information supplied by the Australian Local Government Association. * Aboriginal community councils have been excluded from the total number of councils in Queensland. ** Information not available at this time for South Australia due to recent structural reforms.*** Excepting South Australia.5111(Question No. 2841)28415111Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:How many Telstra public telephones in towns and villages in the electoral division of Calare (a) have been removed since 1 April 1997 and (b) will be removed between 1 April and 1 October 1998.5111Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) Telstra advises that it has removed three payphones from the Electorate of Calare between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998.(b) Telstra anticipates that some 23 payphones will be removed between 1 April 1998 and 1 October 1998. However, over the same period a considerable number of new, smart card phones will be installed in Calare. Telstra anticipates that a total of 213 new phones will be installed in the period January 1998 to December 1998.5111(Question No. 2866)28665111Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:(1) What is the current schedule for vacation and relocation of the relevant facilities under the planned joint education organisation for officer education.(2) What new buildings or premises are planned to accommodate the new organisation in (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001 and beyond.(3) What is the estimated cost of each building or premises referred to in part (2).(4) Which buildings or premises will be vacated.(5) What will happen to the vacated facilities.5111McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (2) and (3) The Australian College of Defence Studies (ACDSS) and the Joint Services Staff College (JSSC) are currently located at the Defence precinct at Weston Creek in the ACT. As part of the implementation of the Defence Reform Program, a new higher Defence course for senior officers to replace the JSSC and ACDSS courses is being developed. The new higher Defence course will be delivered at facilities at Weston Creek. Studies to support this are under way. The Navy, Army and Air Force Staff Colleges are also to be collocated, however, planning is at an early stage and no decision has been taken on a future site.(4) At present, the Navy Staff College is based at HMAS Penguin at Balmoral in Sydney, the Army Staff College is at Fort Queenscliff south of Geelong, and the Air Force Staff College is at RAAF Base Fairbairn in Canberra.(5) Discussions have been held with representatives of the Queenscliff community on the future of Fort Queenscliff. RAAF Base Fairbairn has been sold in conjunction with the sale of Canberra Airport. HMAS Penguin will continue as a functioning establishment.5111(Question No. 2872)28725111Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:(1) How many war widows who remarried since May 1984 have retained their pension as a result of the legislative changes in 1986.(2) What is the estimated number of war widows who remarried before May 1984 and (a) are still alive, (b) have been widowed a second time and (c) are separated or divorced from their second husband.(3) Has the Government reviewed the treatment of war widows who remarried before May 1984; if so, (a) what were the recommendations of the review and (b) what changes has the Government made.5111Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question are is follows:(1) Statistics of war widows who remarried since May 1984 and have retained their pension as a result of the legislative changes of 1986 are not readily available. The reason is that there is no requirement for a war widow who remarried after May 1984 to advise my Department of her change of personal circumstances unless she was in receipt of or applies for Income Support Supplement or income support from Centrelink.(2) My Department does not have reliable figures, however estimated figures are: (a) 4,100; (b) 2,020; (c) 200.(3) In 1994 an Inquiry into Compensation for Veterans and War Widows (the Baume Committee) considered the treatment of war widows who remarried prior to May 1984.(a) The Committee recommended that the current pension rules relating to remarriage should remain in place. (b) No changes have been made by the Government.5112(Question No. 2889)28895112Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:What is the (a) peacetime establishment and (b) current staffing strength of each unit in the Australian Army.5112McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) and (b) The peacetime establishment of the Regular Army is 26,882 with the current staffing strength being 25,016. The peacetime establishment of the Army Reserve is 33,659 with the current effective strength being 24,656. I will provide the establishment and current staffing levels for each of the 288 headquarters and units in which Australian Army members are employed, directly to the honourable member as this detailed information is classified RESTRICTED.The Army's establishment is currently under detailed review. The Restructuring the Army initiative which flowed from the Army in the 21st Century review, together with the implementation of the Defence Reform Program, will define the future establishment of the Army.The honourable member will recall that in the context of the Defence Reform Program, and recently promulgated Government strategic policy, I have directed that the strength of the Regular Army is to be 23,000 within the overall ADF strength of 50,000.The current plan within the Army is to have an effective Reserve strength of 27,000 by 30 June 2002.The current gap between the Army's establishment and staffing levels will be reduced as the establishment is progressively adjusted to meet capability requirements and the target staffing levels.As a result of the Defence Reform Program, combat and combat related positions across the ADF will increase to about 65 per cent of the Defence Force. New combat positions will be used, among other things, for Army units in Western Australia, Sydney and Melbourne, and ASLAV and Bushranger vehicles for Army.5112(Question No. 2918)29185112Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) Was a session entitled `Virus resistant plants' held at the meeting on transgenic plants in March 1997, referred to in the answer to question No. 2596 (Hansard , 4 March 1998, page 376), to discuss the possible risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants; if so, did scientists attending the session agree that the development of virus-resistant transgenic plants had advanced ahead of research on the possible risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants including research on the risks posed by the emergence of new recombinant viruses.(2) Does the advice to the Plant Industries Committee, referred to in part (1) of the answer to question No. 2596, about the need for further work to clarify the potential for a new virus to emerge relate to discussions at particular sessions of the meeting or the views of particular participants at the meeting; if so, which (a) sessions and (b) participants.(3) Did the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) Scientific Subcommittee conclude on 1 August 1997 that it did not consider that, in general, the use of transgenic plants with viral genes would introduce risks that were not already present during natural infections of plants with more than one virus.(4) Is it a fact that (a) almost all virus-resistant transgenic plants are resistant because they have been modified to carry one or more virus genes and (b) one of the risks identified at the meeting on transgenic crops held in March 1997 involves recombination between a virus and a virus gene carried by a plant; if so, is there a conflict or contradiction between the advice given to the Plant Industries Committee referred to in part (2) and the conclusion of GMAC referred to in part (3).(5) Were members of GMAC present at the Scientific Subcommittee meeting on 1 August 1997; if so, (a) which members, (b) what were their affiliations and (c) to whom was the agenda of the meeting given.(6) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that five papers that specifically considered the potential risks of virus-resistant transgenic plants were published in the proceedings of the meeting on transgenic crops held in March 1997.(7) Were all present at the GMAC Scientific Subcommittee meeting held on 1 August 1997 given copies of all five papers referred to in part (6); if so, when were they given copies of the papers; if not, (a) which members of GMAC did not receive all the papers, (b) which papers were not given to them and (c) why were they not given the papers.(8) Did the meeting held on 1 August 1997 consider all five papers; if not, (a) which papers were not considered and (b) who decided which papers should be considered.(9) Which members of GMAC were consulted about the agenda of the meeting held on 1 August 1997.(10) Were all members of the GMAC Scientific Subcommittee informed of the general agreement of scientists present at the session entitled `Virus resistant plants' held at the meeting on transgenic crops in March 1997; if so, when; if not, why not.(11) Are all GMAC members well-informed on the issue of the possible risks arising from the use of virus-resistant transgenic plants.(12) Was a CSIRO officer a member of GMAC during 1997.(13) Who is the member of GMAC, referred to in part (9) of the answer to question No. 2596, involved in work to develop transgenic cotton carrying insect resistance genes.(14) Does one of the strategies attempted in the work referred to in part (13) include the genetic modification of plants so that they carry genes from a virus.(15) Who is the member of GMAC, referred to in part (9) of the answer to question No. 2596, who has been involved in developing virus-resistant white clover.(16) Did either GMAC member referred to in parts (13) and (15) attend GMAC meetings where plants that have been genetically modified to carry a viral gene were discussed; if so, which meetings.(17) Did a GMAC meeting referred to in part (16) relate to an application for the use of genetically modified plants carrying a viral gene; if so, from what organisation did the application originate.(18) Is there a conflict of interest if a member of GMAC (a) who takes part in GMAC discussions on plants that have been genetically modified to carry a viral gene is also involved in a project to develop plants of that kind, (b) who takes part in GMAC discussions of pest-resistant plants is employed by an organisation, agency or company that is working to develop pest-resistant transgenic plants or (c) is employed by an organisation, agency or company that has planned to benefit in any way from the use or development of genetically modified organisms.(19) Has GMAC approved the release of virus-resistant transgenic plants for field testing or wider release since 13 March 1997; if so, which organisations were involved in developing the plants.(20) Is a GMAC member a practising plant virologist or an expert on plant virus recombination; if so, (a) who and (b) what are the person's affiliations. 5113Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Possible risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants were discussed at a session of the meeting on transgenic plants in March 1997. There was no general agreement among the scientists attending the session that the development of virus-resistant transgenic plants had advanced ahead of research on possible risks.(2) Yes.(a) The session on virus-resistant plants.(b) Not applicable.(3) In relation to proposals involving virus-resistant transgenic plants that GMAC had already considered, the Scientific Subcommittee concluded that the risks associated with such plants were not necessarily greater than the risks present during natural viral infection of plants; however, the Scientific Subcommittee also noted that new information on this issue would be taken into account as it became available.(4) (a) Yes.(b) Yes.There is no conflict between the advice given to the Plant Industries Committee (that further research on the risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants may be needed) and the conclusion of GMAC (that it did not currently consider that the risks were necessarily greater than during natural infections of plants but that new information would be taken into account as it became available).(5) Yes.(a) Professor Jim Pittard (Scientific Subcommittee Chair), Professor Nancy Millis (GMAC Chair), Professor Ashley Dunn, Professor Peter Hudson, Associate Professor Peter Langridge, and Dr Ian Parsonson.(b) University of Melbourne (Pittard, Millis), Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research (Dunn), CSIRO Biomolecular Engineering (Hudson), Waite Agricultural Research Institute (Langridge) and retired from the CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory (Parsonson).(c) All the members listed in (a) and the two members of the Scientific Subcommittee who were not present at the meeting (Dr John Oakeshott (CSIRO Entomology) and Dr Jan Tennent (CSIRO Animal Health)).(6) No.(7) No.(a) Members who did not attend the March 1997 meeting on transgenic plants (that is, all members apart from Professor Pittard, Professor Millis and Associate Professor Langridge) did not receive the papers. (b) See answer to (a).(c) Members were not given the papers because the issue of virus-resistant plants was not an agenda item at the Scientific Subcommittee meeting on 1 August 1997. The issue was only discussed in the context of correspondence that had been received on this matter, and the members of the Scientific Subcommittee who had been present at the March 1997 meeting reported orally to the Scientific Subcommittee on the papers presented at that meeting.(8) No.(a) See answer to (7).(b) See answer to (7).(9) Professor Jim Pittard, Chair of the Scientific Subcommittee.(10) No, because there was no such agreement.(11) No. GMAC members have expertise in different specialist areas.(12) Yes.(13) Dr John Oakeshott.(14) Yes.(15) Dr Robyn van Heeswijck.(16) Yes.Dr Oakeshott: Scientific Subcommittee meeting on 2 July 1992; Planned Release Subcommittee meeting on 24 November 1995.Dr van Heeswijck: Planned Release Subcommittee meetings on 14 July 1994; 2 June 1995; 10 September 1996; 30 May 1997.(17) Yes. At the meetings referred to in part (16), applications for plants carrying viral genes from the following organisations were assessed: CSIRO Plant Industry, Agriculture Victoria, La Trobe University, Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, University of Western Australia.(18) (a) GMAC members undertake to inform the Chair immediately if they become aware of any possible conflict of interest between their responsibilities as a member and their personal, business or financial interests. GMAC members sign a declaration to this effect on their appointment to GMAC and stand aside from Committee discussions where there is a potential conflict of interest.(b) See answer to (a).(c) See answer to (a).(19) Yes. Since March 1997, GMAC has advised that proposals for field testing of virus-resistant transgenic plants from the following organisations may proceed: Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, University of Western Australia, CSIRO Plant Industry.(20) No. 5114(Question No. 2919)29195114Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Did the Minister's Department advise health care card holders that travel concessions were available (a) only to Newstart, sickness allowance and special benefit recipients in mid 1997 and (b) also available to widow's allowance and youth training allowance recipients in late 1997; if so, did the changed advice result from intervening changes in legislation or regulations; if not, what steps are being taken to compensate health care card holders who were wrongly charged full fares.5114Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a) The information provided with Health Care Cards in Victoria previously advised that travel concessions were only available to Newstart, Sickness Allowance and Special Benefit recipients. This information was provided by the Victorian Department Human Services (VDHS).(b) A request was made by VDHS on 23 July 1997 to update the information provided with Health Care Cards regarding the availability of transport concessions to Widow Allowance and Youth Training Allowance recipients. These changes were implemented in August 1997.Any changes to information provided with Health Care Cards relating to travel concessions are made in response to requests from the relevant state or territory agencies.The provision of travel concessions, and information relating to those concessions, is a state / territory responsibility. Compensation is an issue for the relevant state or territory government to address.5114(Question No. 2922)29225114Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.5114Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:YearRecurrent Funding and Grants RecipientsAmount(a) 1996-97Ipswich Legal Service Kambu Progress Association$527,730 $293,744(b) 1997-98Grant to Ipswich City Council to further Aboriginal Reconciliation through the publication of the Indigenous Australian Award Ipswich Legal Service Kambu Progress Association$5,000 $523,822 $40,000(c) 1998-99Ipswich Legal Service Kambu Progress Association* ** Allocation for these organisations has not been finalised.5115(Question No. 2931)29315115Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.5115Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) 1996-97Australian Switch and Control Assemblies Network—Amount paid $17,786Network: Electrical Engineering Network(b) 1997-98Queensland Export Homes—Amount paid $35,000Network: Housing Construction NetworkThe businesses participating in the network may be in different parts of Australia. The information on expenditure for this program relates to Networks where one or more of the participating businesses is in the electorate of Oxley. The payment may not necessarily be to the company/organisation in the electorate.The Australian Sports Commission has provided funding to six athletes who reside in the Oxley electorate.(c) 1998-99Nil. 5115(Question No. 2932)29325115Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in(a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.5115McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Defence does not maintain budget records by electorate but is able to extract data on expenditure by tracing payments made to individuals and organisations according to their postal addresses. On this basis, expenditure in the electorate of Oxley for the stipulated periods was:(a) 1996-97 FundingTotal Defence expenditure in the electorate of Oxley for financial year 1996-97 was $129,900,938, which can be broken down into:PersonnelAustralian Defence Force salaries/allowances paid to personnel in Oxley amounted to $99,009,693, while civilian salaries/allowances totalled $8,833,000.OtherExpenditure on equipment and stores, facilities maintenance, facilities construction and administration amounted to $22,043,287, of which the Major Capital share was $8,443,419.GrantsAmberley family progress association13,108Amberley Military Christian fellowship1,100Raceview State School P&C association750Total$14,958(b) 1997-98 FundingTotal Defence expenditure in the electorate of Oxley for financial year 1997-98 was $119,235,942, which can be broken down into:PersonnelAustralian Defence Force salaries/allowances paid to personnel in Oxley amounted to$93,992,510, while civilian salaries/allowances totalled $7,327,000.OtherExpenditure on equipment and stores, facilities maintenance, facilities construction and administration, up to 30 April 1998, amounted to $17,901,824, of which the Major Capital share was $5,738,599.GrantsAmberley meets & greets group4,225Amberley pre-school & kindergarten1,750Amberley State School P&C assoc.4,781Defence Special Needs Support Group—Amberley432Immaculate Heart primary school400Leichhardt community group inc.1,120RAAF Amberley playgroup1,400Raceview state school P&C assoc.500Total$14,608(c) 1998-99 FundingThe Department of Defence does not forecast by electorates, but the answers to (1) & (2) would be a guide. Proposed Capital Facilities expenditure at Amberley for the year 1998-99 includes provision of technical facilities for 6 Squadron ($1,515,000) and redevelopment of the RAAF base ($7,000,000). The move to the new division of Oxley will involve the inclusion of Greenbank Training Area which will involve a small increase in expenditure.GrantsThe Defence Family Support Funding Program has received applications for financial year 1998/99. The bids will be considered shortly. Ten applications have been received from the electorate of Oxley.5116(Question No. 2979)29795116Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:Has the NSW State member for Lakemba, Mr Tony Stewart, MLA, submitted a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding the actions of a Mr Khadar Roude; if so, (a) does Mr Stewart's complaint involve a reference he wrote for Mr Roude to be used in conjunction with the Islamic Council for New South Wales but was instead used by Mr Roude to support his company's tender to the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs to provide employment services as part of the new Job Network scheme and (b) what is the current status of the complaint.5116Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I have no personal knowledge of any such complaint and I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to request that the Commonwealth Ombudsman provide any information concerning any particular complaint that his Office may have received. The Ombudsman and his staff are subject to secrecy requirements set out in section 35 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 and are required by subsection 8(2) of that Act to investigate complaints in private.5116(Question No. 3019)30195116Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 May 1998:(1) Who is permitted to use the Australian coat of arms.(2) When may it be used.(3) Is its use governed by Acts of Parliament; if so, which Acts.(4) What authority does the Olympic Games Committee have to use the Australian coat of arms.5117Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth Coat of Arms is a symbol of Commonwealth government authority, power and ownership. It is for the principal use by Commonwealth government departments and non-trading Commonwealth authorities. On a case by case basis, the Awards and National Symbols Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will consider exceptions to this general restriction. The exceptions made to date include permission to place the Commonwealth Coat of Arms on the sporting apparel of competitively selected Australian sporting teams competing internationally, and other similar teams, such as those competing in skill olympics; and permission to reproduce the Commonwealth Coat of Arms in educational books and publications.(2) The Commonwealth Coat of Arms may be used to identify Commonwealth owned or occupied buildings and on formal letterhead and publications used by or produced by Commonwealth departments and non-trading authorities. It may also be used on the uniforms and credentials of Commonwealth officials.(3) No.(4) In common with the procedures required of any sporting body seeking to have the Commonwealth Coat of Arms placed on the sporting apparel of their competitively selected athletes, the Australian Olympic Games Committee periodically seeks, and obtains, approval from the Awards and National Symbols Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.5118(Question No. 3024)30245118Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister for the Status of Women, upon notice, on 1 June 1998:(1) Has the Government recently announced a pilot program to increase the number of women on public sector boards.(2) Has the executive search firm, Profile Ray and Berndtson, been selected by the Office of the Status of Women to draw up lists of women for appointment to public sector positions; if so, (a) what total fee will be paid to the firm for the work, (b) did the selection of the firm follow a formal tender process; if not, why not, (c) did the firm manage the selection of Ms Pru Goward as Head of the Office of the Status of Women and (d) is it a fact that apart from some contracts with the ACT Government, including significant fees for oral advice, that the firm had limited involvement in the Canberra and Commonwealth Government market before March 1996.5118Moylan, Judi, MPMrs Moylan4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, on 27 March 1998, the Prime Minister announced an Executive Search Pilot Program and an Early Warning System, to help increase the number of women appointed to Commonwealth boards and bodies.(2) The firm, Profile Ray and Berndtson, has been selected to provide assistance as part of the Executive Search Pilot Program.(a) The firm is paid $400.00 per nominee. Travel and accommodation disbursements are in addition to this cost.(b) The selection of the firm followed an open tender process.(c) The firm provided executive search services as part of the selection process for the position of Head of the Office of the Status of Women.(d) I am unable to comment on Profile Ray and Berndtson's involvement in the Canberra and Commonwealth Government market before March 1996.