1998-06-233817REPS511901998-06-23Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice511951195119Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the Business Council's withdrawal yesterday of its first published tax campaign ad because it falsely stated:By the year 2000, everyone on an average wage will be in the top tax bracket.Is it not the case that, for this to be true on latest ABS figures, average weekly ordinary time earnings would have to increase by 33 per cent over the next 18 months? Given that the Business Council advertising campaign is based on your rhetoric, was your party responsible for providing the misleading information on bracket creep which forced the withdrawal of one of its ads on day one?5119Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The Business Council ads were the responsibility of the Business Council. We have never provided any misleading information.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, never ever.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Never ever. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question about taxation. When I was reading the papers early this morning, I saw a news report which carried the views of a former minister of the Keating Labor government, Mr Gary Johns. Mr Gary Johns writes a great deal of sense these days. Mr Gary Johns was saying that he had basically said to the Australian Labor Party, `Why don't you wake up to yourselves. Why don't you look to the Australian interest and don't be so stupid. Drop your fearmongering against taxation reform.'51195119Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen any alternative proposals for the use of Telstra dividends? How would such ap proaches compare with the retirement of Labor debt planned by the coalition?5119Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I saw at the weekend that the Leader of theOpposition is now saying that if he were in government he would divert money out of the Telstra dividends to worthy causes, particularly in regional Australia. There is one thing that he did not do: he did not say what he would do with the money he would thereby be taking from health, education and other services. Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition, the Telstra dividend is already factored into the budget. If you are going to take $500 million out of the Telstra dividend and give it to bush infrastructure, you are taking the $500 million from somewhere else. Are you going to take it from nursing homes, Medicare, government schools or poor Catholic schools? I think the Leader of the Opposition ought to answer this simple question: where is the money coming from?51195119Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can he justify the top end of town, including people like the Business Council leadership now leading the charge for a GST, getting under that GST regime a net tax break, for example, on a new $120,000 Mercedes of $16,192 while families, young people and low income Australians who presently and overwhelmingly buy untaxed used cars will be slugged with a new tax on those used car purchases?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under the standing orders, there is a requirement in this place to ask questions at question time and not make a speech. I draw your attention to the way that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in his attempt to get his TV grab down, has ignored your admonitions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader has now concluded his question. The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will answer the question.5119Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others should wait and see the tax package. When they see the tax package, they will find that it deals with the tax obligations of Australians at all income ranges in a very fair and equitable fashion. Perhaps instead of asking me questions the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should explain to the Australian public why he continues to support a tax system which says that if are you wealthy enough to buy a Lear jet you do not pay any wholesale sales tax but that if you are like the rest of us you pay 22 per cent on your family car. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to explain to the Australian public why he supports a system that allows at present a wealthy person to buy a Lear jet for millions of dollars and not pay a cent in wholesale sales tax but which, like the rest of us, if you can only afford a family car, requires you to pay 22 per cent wholesale sales tax. Gareth Evans should explain that to the Australian battlers.51205120Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports that the current tax system is too complex, has too many overlapping taxes, is focused on business inputs, distorts performance in the economy, is inequitable and does little to encourage national and private savings? Where were these claims made and what is the government's response to them?5120Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I was rather taken by a story in the Australian Financial Review this morning on the problems of Australia's tax system. I went back to the source of the article. I can reveal to the House that it is a very stimulating magazine, well worth reading, called Options . As it turns out, the publisher of this magazine is the member for Sturt, who asked me the question. There are a number of articles in this Options magazine on producing a better tax system for Australia, including one by me. I would like to refer the House to the one which appears on page 7, which tells us what needs to be fixed in the current tax system. It reads:1. It consists of too many different and overlapping taxes.We would agree with that.2. It is complex and makes compliance difficult. We would agree with that.3. It is unduly focused on business inputs and income and reduces competitiveness.We would agree with that.4. It applies differently to different parts of the economy and distorts performance.I think the government would agree with that.5. It is inequitable because the wealthy can minimise tax.We would agree with that.6. It does little to encourage savings.That article was written by Gary Johns, a former minister in the Keating government, who then goes on to say—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Everyone has to make a living.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Leader of the Opposition says that everyone has to make a living. And you will try to make one out of opposing sensible reform in Australia, won't you? Mr Johns says:This is the one great reform that Labor could not tackle, outside the waterfront labour monopoly, after Keating's 1985 option C died.ACOSS is saying that the Australian taxation system needs reform. It says:If we want a better future, we must find better ways of financing it. That is why tax reform is such a fundamental issue.ACOSS wants tax reform; the business community wants tax reform; the Commonwealth government wants tax reform; the state premiers want tax reform; Gary Johns wants tax reform; Bob Hogg wants tax reform. You are only allowed to tell the truth in the Labor Party once you have resigned from it. And who is opposed to tax reform?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Is that what Fraser is saying on One Nation? What about Fraser on One Nation?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—A joint ticket between Labor and One Nation, led by their respective economic spokesmen, Gareth Evans and David Ettridge, is now opposing tax reform in this country on precisely the same grounds, not because there is any principle, not because you can justify the current tax system, not because you believe in it, but for straight, pure, opportunistic reasons there is a unity ticket between Labor and One Nation, neither of them with a clue as to how to run the Australian economy, and neither of them with a clue as to what to do about a good tax system.51215121McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister attend a meeting in Canberra of the national executive of the Australian Hotels Association at which Richard Mulcahy asked the government to abandon the no disadvantage test enacted in the Workplace Relations Act? Did the Prime Minister inform the meeting that the government would consider abandoning the no disadvantage test if it were returned at the next general election? Prime Minister, isn't the no disadvantage test your claimed means of ensuring that workers cannot be worse off, although it is not working? Will you now guarantee that you will `never ever' abandon or water down the no disadvantage test?5121Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I did attend such a meeting and a number of subjects were canvassed. Our policy on the no disadvantage test remains unaltered.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.51215121Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, could you inform the House of the changes to workplace culture on Australia's waterfront arising from the Patrick's agreement with the MUA?5121Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—One of the significant aspects of the reforms now being put in place will be to significantly reduce overmanning on the Australian waterfront. The union says there will be a net number of around 400, but they are only talking about MUA members in that net number. In fact, there are a significant number of AMOU members who will also be taking up the redundancies. But we will leave it to the union to explain the numbers as they have agreed with Patrick's.As a result of a significant reduction in overmanning, roughly half of the work force, we will see the end of some of the worst rorts and restrictive practices on the Australian waterfront. Members will remember the infamous `nick'. The nick is where somebody is working and they get paid to go home; they get paid to sit at home and watch TV, at double time and a half. The nick was a consequence of the problems of overmanning. One of the aspects of the agreement is that there will be one person per machine. One person per machine—one man, one machine—is a revolution on the Australian waterfront. It is commonplace everywhere else but it is a very significant change on the Australian waterfront.As we see this agreement implemented, instead of a rort a day, we are going to see a rort abolished a day as a result of these reforms. We will see crane rates reaching 25 lifts an hour, which is the basis upon which the manning levels have been agreed. If Australia can have—and I believe it can strive to achieve—internationally competitive productivity rates on the waterfront, the benefit for the Australian economy is something like an extra 4,000 jobs spread throughout the economy and an extra $1 billion added to the living standards of all Australians. That is a huge benefit.To ensure that we achieve these real gains from reform, the government will put in place a comprehensive monitoring system; there will be the quarterly publication by the BTCE of Waterline to monitor crane rates and reliability; the ACCC will monitor costs and pricing; we will commission an independent report from the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in 18 months to ensure that we are also getting the benefits directly for the benefit of employees; and my department will publish separate industrial relations dispute figures quarterly from 1 July, as yet another indicator of reliability.Lastly, as people vote for these packages, the government obviously will need to be in a position to proceed with the stevedoring levy legislation that is currently before the parliament. The Labor Party has been opposed to it but we look forward to their support when they see the benefits to the Australian economy of the huge reforms now under way.Distinguished Visitors512210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Burke, I would like to welcome, on behalf of all members, the New Zealand parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. We trust you have a very enjoyable visit to Australia and enjoy your time in the House of Representatives.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice512251225122O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask him: are you aware that your government, through the National Competition Council, is threatening to penalise the New South Wales government $10 million per annum because the Labor Premier, Bob Carr, and his agriculture minister, Richard Amery, have decided to back New South Wales rice growers by keeping the current rice marketing arrangements in place? Deputy Prime Minister, who is responsible for this competition policy madness in your government? How will you explain to rice growers in your electorate what your government has done to them?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the government are silent, I will call the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade to respond.5122Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—As the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has pointed out, it would help if the member would do some more research and not be led up the garden path by some of his New South Wales contacts. I do not administer this aspect of competition policy. It is in the portfolio of the Treasurer, but I liaise very carefully with the Treasurer and with other ministerial colleagues on what are very important issues.Some 12 months ago, in conjunction with the member for Riverina, who also has a large rice area in his electorate, I went into bat and arranged for a deferral for 12 months of a $10 million dockage, pending some examination of a report which the New South Wales state government itself had commissioned and which the New South Wales state government has brought forward. At that time, the New South Wales state government accepted the report. It is not my business to reject or accept aspects which involve state legislation, except as they may come forward under aspects relating to competition policy.An arrangement was reached where there would be a deferment for 12 months to allow further and careful consideration of all aspects involved with the rice industry. The rice industry is an outstanding example of a well-organised, export oriented industry successfully exporting to the world, including Riverina rice into Japan at this time, as a consequence of trade negotiation outcomes. We are ensuring that there is further liaison and cooperation.I do not want to see any $10 million dockage take place, but that, of course, is contingent upon some reasonable steps agreed to by stakeholders 12 months ago being advanced. They have not been advanced until 1 May. Steps are being taken to see whether they can be advanced, most notably between now and 30 June so the $10 million dockage does not take place. If the $10 million dockage takes place, it rests on the shoulders of the New South Wales state government and its underwhelming performance on the matter. It is not our decision. It is part of a package of arrangements which it has failed to comply with. I will stick up for the efficient and effective structure of the Australian rice industry.51225122Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the minister outline for the House what initiatives the government has taken for the benefit of the rural sector, particularly those facing serious economic hardship such as those in my electorate of Hinkler? 5123Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question, and I know that all members would be conscious that there are many people in our rural communities, farmers in particular, who are experiencing enormous difficulties at the moment. In part, that is because of low commodity prices, in many areas enormously exacerbated by drought—in some cases, it has gone on for five, six and seven years. I know that everyone in this place feels very deeply for those farm families and the communities around them that are so badly affected by the circumstances often over which they have little or no control.Quite apart from the obvious benefits of low interest rates, beating farm inflation and so forth, we have been providing some very valuable, worthwhile and direct assistance. For example, in the time that we have been in government, we have spent well over $200 million on exceptional circumstances relief, firstly, under the drought relief program and now under exceptional circumstances relief payments which see both income support and business support for those hard hit farm families.Under current arrangements, even when the drought breaks, farm families are entitled to a 12-month recovery period, which is a doubling of the old arrangements. I do know that that has been very much appreciated by Queensland farmers because they have been especially hard hit by drought in recent years. At its peak, there were some 10,000 farm families accessing this assistance. Even as we speak, there are 3,000 farm families directly benefiting, including 350 in East Gippsland and some 85 or so in the member for Eden Monaro's seat.Under the government's new Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, there is further assistance for those who are really facing great financial stress. They can access the new program farm family restart, which offers them income support and a voucher which entitles them to have an in-depth business analysis of their operation undertaken. If they find a way forward, if they identify a way forward, they can access further assistance through, for example, property management planning under Landcare and Farmbis. Alternatively, in those tragic circumstances that do happen, that do bedevil some farm families, they will be assisted in a generous way to re-establish themselves in something else.In addition to that, retirement assistance for farmers is currently being legislated. Some 500 farm families have registered with Centrelink to access that valuable program where more than one generation lives on a farm and needs to be able to access the pension more readily than under existing programs where, of course, it takes them up to five years.Let me say in conclusion that, as another very worthwhile example that strikes at the heart of many concerns in the bush about the withdrawal of services, we have been operating creditcare. Creditcare is a joint government and credit union facility. There are some 39 towns now that have credit unions where they once had banks that have withdrawn. There are many more on the drawing boards. It is a very practical example of a way in which we are able to help with a very real problem in rural Australia.51235123Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain to families who live outside the cities and who have a son or daughter who is unemployed why he will be cutting their unemployment benefits—by up to $87 a week—in less than two weeks time? How does the Prime Minister expect these families to come up with an extra $87 per week so that they can support their young unemployed son or daughter until they find a job? And how can you possibly justify such a policy to the people of Gympie, to the people of Burnie, to the people of Lismore—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—You know what you did to Burnie!UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—All One Nation!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will put his question and ignore all interruptions.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—You do not need to worry about One Nation on this, Mr Speaker; she hardly ever votes, but she voted with you on this one! And how can you possibly justify such a policy to the people of Gympie, to the people of Burnie, to the people of Lismore and to the people of Bendigo at a time when youth unemployment is over 40 per cent?5124Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The youth allowance policy is based on the principle that people should be given an incentive to prefer training over unemployment. It is based upon the principle that people should be encouraged to stay at school rather than to leave school without the prospect of a job. For too long, the social security system has encouraged people to leave school without knowing whether they had a job in prospect. What we have done is to alter the incentives so that there is either an incentive to stay at school longer or an incentive to go into training.I think the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken when he alleges that people in non-metropolitan areas are going to be disadvantaged. Indeed, there are tens of thousands of Australian families whose children will receive enhanced benefits because of the increased allowances for families where children must be educated away from home. I would invite those members in this parliament who represent regional areas to have a look at the detail and they will find that the great bulk of their constituents who have children in this age cohort will in fact be better off under the government's proposal.51245124Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Many unemployed young people in my electorate have benefited greatly from the work for the dole scheme. Minister, would you bring to the attention of the House the success of work for the dole in my electorate of Forde? What plans does the government have for its expansion?5124Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Forde for her question. I had the great satisfaction of visiting her electorate last week and she took me to visit one of the highly successful work for the dole projects. It was a great pleasure to see the young people on that project and how they had been inspired by the opportunity that work for the dole had offered them. In fact, they had been greatly encouraged by the fact that a number of members of that project had already got jobs in the surrounding community. Work for the dole, I believe, has tapped a very deep chord in the Australian community. People in Australia believe that there is a mutual obligation between those people who are receiving benefits from the community and those people who are working very hard to provide those benefits; and no-one recognises that more than young people themselves.We now have something like 6,500 young participants on work for the dole projects around Australia and 156 projects. Many communities around Australia have received the benefits of these projects. Indeed Raptis Plaza in Surfers Paradise has had an outstanding public mural done by work for the dole participants which has delighted shopping centre managements and passers-by. As one participant said, `It has given me a lot more motivation to go out and get a job and has boosted my morale.' Members of this House should realise that there would not be work for the dole if it were not for this government. There would not be work for the dole opportunities if it had not been for this government and if it had not been for the leadership of the Prime Minister. It just goes to show how out of touch the Labor Party is. As the Leader of the Opposition has said in the past, and as he is repeating here today by way of interjection, `Well, what about jobs for these young people?' I have now visited many communities and I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that there are a lot of employers—for example, in the member for Ballarat's electorate—who have made it a rule now to only hire young people who have been on work for the dole projects, because they appreciate the attitude and commitment to their community that participants in these projects have shown.The government believes that work for the dole is worthwhile and should be expanded. Over the next four years there will be 100,000 new work for the dole places at a cost of some $260 million. Submissions for projects over the next six months have already been called for. Some 691 submissions have been received and the government will be announcing the results of these applications in the middle of July.51255125Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I ask the minister representing the Minister for Social Security: is it not correct that, in ascertaining the eligibility for youth allowance in respect of a 22-year-old living in a household with one natural parent and one step-parent, the step-parent's income is taken into account even though that step-parent has not assumed, and is not legally responsible for, the maintenance and upkeep of the 22-year-old? Has the government overlooked the stressors, financial and otherwise, that such a policy imposes on step-families?5125Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I will get some formal advice on the technical issues raised. I think that is the more appropriate response in this case.51255125Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, can you please outline to the House exactly what the implications are of the government's franchising code of conduct for small retailers who are currently experiencing problems with their particular franchise system?5125Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question. I do say to the citizens in her electorate that she is a very strong and effective advocate for small business in particular in the Hughes electorate. We look forward to her continuing strong representation in the next parliament. I was delighted to be down in her electorate the other day and I spoke to a lot of small business people who spontaneously said what a tremendous and effective advocate she is in her community. I tell you what: if that David Hill ever got into the federal parliament, the first thing he would do is take for granted the people who put him in. That is typical of Labor candidates.Anyway, this franchising code is a tremendous step forward for small business. The franchising industry is a $52 billion industry, and that is why this government was committed to ensure that we had a sensible regulatory framework in place for this industry. Our franchising code of conduct will be underpinned by the Trade Practices Act. It comes into operation on 1 July and it means that our code has got real teeth. It really will be an effective means of providing proper protection and a sensible regulatory framework, which is in the interests of everybody in the franchising sector—the many hundreds of franchisors and the tens of thousands of franchisees.The fact is that Labor had a code. It was a voluntary code and, like many things that Labor did, it did not work. It was not effective and we needed, therefore, a parliamentary inquiry—conducted by the member for Bendigo and supported by so many excellent members on this side of the parliament—to come in, look at the problems and make some recommendations so that, for the small business sector, we would have a system that really does work and works effectively. This code comes into effect, as I said, on 1 July, but we have given the industry three months to meet the compliance requirements. So it starts on 1 July and there are some things which immediately come into effect but, in general terms, the compliance comes into effect on 1 October.One thing I want to say about this code is that it does not affect business decisions. I could sum up the code by using the word disclosure—in other words, the focus of this document is on informing people about what they are getting into so they know what they are getting into with their eyes open. That will offset many of the problems that the industry has faced.Labor had 13 years to do something in this area. They never did. This government always gave, and has from the moment we were elected, the highest priority to small business. When this code comes into effect on 1 July, it will be yet another symbol that, when we said we would give small business high priority, we really meant it. We have given it a fair go, and it is about time this industry had the support at the highest levels of government that it so obviously deserves.51265126Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's promise to `never ever' close a regional post office. Isn't it the case that Australia Post currently applies a $67 million cross-subsidy in order to keep these post offices open? Prime Minister, if you open the profitable business-mail market to competition, won't Australia Post have to abandon its $67 million cross-subsidy? Will you guarantee to fund any shortfall from the budget? Prime Minister, given it has taken only two years to break your promise to `never ever' introduce a GST, how can you expect people to believe your promise on closure of regional post offices?5126Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Let me repeat the statement I made on Sunday in very simple words so that even the members of the Labor Party will understand it. We will ensure that our response to the National Competition Council report does not lead to any further closure of post offices or mail centres. Full stop.51265126Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Is the minister aware of recent statements about access to Medicare offices and levels of bulk-billing? Can the minister inform the House whether there is any truth in these claims? What is the situation in my electorate of Deakin in relation to bulk-billing levels and access to Medicare claiming services?5126Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question and his interest. I am actually aware of this. As well as the member for Namadgi making completely fictitious claims about levels of bulk-billing, we also have the Labor Party candidate in Deakin making similar claims. I have here a copy of a letter that has been sent around to households in the electorate that makes a number of quite astonishing claims. Firstly, he is claiming that people in Deakin have less access to Medicare. Secondly, he is saying that fewer doctors are able to provide bulk-billing because of cuts to rebates. Thirdly, he is saying that we have plans to abolish Medicare. I will not name him because he is eminently forgettable.I will take these three claims on a factual basis one by one. Firstly, the people of Deakin actually have the same or maybe a slightly better access to Medicare than they did two years ago. Deakin has two Medicare offices, in Forest Hill and Ringwood. They are both still functioning very well and we have offered a Medicare claiming facility to a pharmacy on the Maroondah Highway. If they take it up, the electorate of Deakin will actually have greater claiming facilities than they had two years ago. So the first claim is completely fictitious.Secondly, in relation to levels of bulk-billing, I asked the Health Insurance Commission to give me the rate of bulk-billing for general practitioners in Deakin. In March 1996, the rate was 76.2 per cent. In March 1997, it was 77.0 per cent. In March 1998—the latest figures available—it was 77.9 per cent. So the rate of bulk-billing in Deakin has gone up 1.7 per cent over two years.It is true that Medicare rebates for general practitioners have been increasing at a very slow rate, but that is actually a decision of the previous government. In 1993 the previous government made a decision to only half index GP rebates. The GP schedule fee for a standard consultation is $24.70. If the previous government had kept its promise—and it was a very specific promise—not to discount rebates to pay for the GP strategy, the practice rebate today would be $26 exactly. So general practitioners rebates are $1.30 less today than they would have been otherwise because of a specific decision of the Labor Party while in office.MG4LEEMr Lee—What happened in 1996?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—It is true that in 1996 we had to make a decision to take away half indexation, and that resulted in a 15c reduction. So for the carping, whining interjection from the shadow minister over there, our decision reduced rebates by six-tenths of a per cent; your decision reduced rebates by 5.3 per cent. If there is any effect on GP rebates, it is as a direct result of the decision you took six years ago. Finally, this whole letter is no more than a tawdry misrepresentation on health. If it is the standard of the campaigning of the Labor Party in Deakin, the current honourable member, Phil Barresi, will have no trouble at all.51275127Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you support the award stripping process which will see important award conditions of employment stripped away as of 1 July this year? Do you, for example, support the removal of award conditions which protect horticultural employees in regional areas who regularly deal with chemicals—award conditions such as the right to information about, and instruction in, the use of chemicals; the right to training in first aid—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member's question is getting a bit long. He needs to ask his question.8K6Mr FITZGIBBON—the right to medical examinations for workers exposed to chemicals; and the right to adequate first aid facilities coverage?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Address your question.8K6Mr FITZGIBBON—Prime Minister, how can you claim to support workers in regional areas yet at the same time strip them of important award conditions?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is getting well out of order. The Prime Minister.5127Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.WI4Mr REITH—I have responsibility for award simplification—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—and I am very happy to advise the House about it. It is surprising that the Labor Party should ask this question, given the fact that back in 1993 Paul Keating himself publicly supported the very concept.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter's question was very nearly out of order. He has a point of order now?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Yes. My question was quite clearly a question about the Prime Minister's commitment to workers in regional Australia, and only he can answer that question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the member should know, the Prime Minister has the capacity to direct that a response be given by any minister within his ministry.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition, including the member for Hotham, will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—The previous Labor government publicly declared itself as being in favour of the concept of award simplification. They introduced section 150(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 to implement that policy, yet they failed to implement it. Why? Not because it was not a good idea, they publicly declared it to be a good idea. They never implemented it because the ACTU dictated whether or not that policy could in fact be carried out. It took the election of a coalition government to require that process to be completed and to put in place a time frame within which it would happen. As at 30 June the allowable matters of the Workplace Relations Act definition and schema come into place, and as at 1 July if matters are outside of the allowable matters list, they become null and void. Sure, there are a few unions that are complaining about that, and that is exactly as we predicted. The reason we put a timetable in place was that we knew that, unless there was a timetable to make this actually happen, it never would.Lastly, in respect of occupational health and safety matters, these are by and large covered by state regulation and are extensively monitored by state authorities. It is complete nonsense for you to put up the example that you did. Workers in regional areas suffered high unemployment for the years that you were in office, and you treated them with absolute contempt. Even today, when we are trying to put through sensible measures in the Senate for the benefit of small business to create jobs, the Labor Party having created the problem is up there in the Senate using its numbers to prevent us from implementing a solution. Don't you talk to us about workers in regional areas.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter will remain silent.Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hunter!WI4Mr REITH—You treated them with contempt for 13 years.51285128Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Could the minister advise the House of what action this government has taken to secure the future of Australia's rail industry.5128Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the honourable member for Longman for his question. As members would know, the member for Longman has taken a great deal of interest in the actions that have been undertaken by our government to facilitate the security and extension of rail services in Australia. Members would be aware that, along with a private sector company, the Prime Minister participated in an announcement of the possibility of the private sector getting involved in the development of the inland rail bridge. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Everald Compton of the Australian Transport and Energy Corridor group, which is one of the principal proposers of this visionary project.Along with that, members would be aware of some of the changes that the Howard-Fischer government has undertaken with regard to underpinning the security of rail in Australia, following the pitiful experience that this country suffered under the Labor Party. For instance, in Tasmania, Tasrail has announced a profit on its rail operations—the first time there has been a profit in rail in Tasmania for 130 years. Tasrail also announced a $12.5 million investment in a new fleet of locos to haul an increasing level of freight, a 20 per cent increase since it took over in November 1997, as well as new rail wagons that are to be built in Burnie.In South Australia, Great Southern Railways, the private owners of the interstate passenger service, have today announced the extension of the Ghan service from Alice Springs to Melbourne. That, coupled with better marketing of the Ghan, the Indian Pacific and the overland trains, means a boost to regional and outback tourism, which means more jobs in places like Broken Hill, Adelaide, Port Augusta, Kalgoorlie and Alice Springs.It is quite clear that our government is supporting the rebirth of rail in Australia, and this means securing more jobs in other towns such as Pinnaroo and Leigh Creek in South Australia with the development and expansion of the freight services in South Australia. As well as facilitating the rebirth of rail in South Australia and Tasmania, our government is supporting rail right across Australia.We have allocated $100 million towards the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link. We have budgeted $250 million towards the upgrade of the interstate track. We are working with the New South Wales and ACT governments on the very high speed train between Sydney and Canberra. As was announced today, we are working with facilitating the development of the inland rail bridge. Members should contrast this with the appalling legacy left by Labor when in South Australia alone the Labor Party cost 7,000 jobs in the rail industry.Distinguished Visitors512810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In addition to the New Zealand Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, we have members of another New Zealand House of Representatives committee in our chamber this afternoon—the health committee. On behalf of all the members of the House, I extend to the members of that committee a very warm welcome. I am delighted to see that so many Kiwis enjoy visiting Australia. Enjoy your time in the House.Questions Without Notice512951295129Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Family Services. What is the minister going to do to stop the imminent closure of outside school hours child care services in Lismore, Port Macquarie, Gosford and Cessnock? Is the minister aware that for some of these centres enrolments are 50 per cent, staff numbers have been cut to one and in one centre an 11-year-old child has been asked to provide care? Why is the government turning its back on women who live in the country and looking the other way while essential child care services close?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I think aged care was easier, Warwick.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that members of the opposition might restrain their enthusiasm.5129Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—Thanks for the welcome. As I have said previously about the outside school hours care changes that have been made, they followed a two-year study that was commissioned by the previous government. The design of outside school hours care has been that we wanted to bring in to the net those people who use outside school hours care who previously did not receive the benefit of child care assistance. There are some 51,000 families who will receive child care assistance who previously did not receive that assistance. Because of that change, those families are increasingly seeing outside school hours care, which is a shorter use of the child care system, as being beneficial.That was a study that was commissioned by you. We acted on it. The registration since the commencement of those families who want to use that service, as I have previously said, nearly equals now the full 51,000 that we estimated would be entitled to receive it. In addition, because of the changes that we made, we have provided an additional $20 million to those outside school hours services that need additional assistance to cope with the changes that are taking place. I have to say to you that any of those individual services that have had issues about making the change and informing the parents about those matters have been provided with individual attention from officers from my department. In common with everybody else in this parliament who have approached my office, we have found that where they have done that most of those services have been able to be attended to and their needs have been met.Let us face the reality about child care assistance. What we want to do in this country is provide choice. We want to provide choice for families to enter into long day care, outside school hours care or before care or vacation care—whatever their choice is. That is something that you ignored when you had the opportunity to address the needs of child care in this country. You allowed unrestrained growth, absolutely unrestrained growth. I come back to the point that I have made previously about child care in this country. If you were genuine about the need that you are now articulating, you would not have supported the legislation I brought to the parliament to make these changes in child care last year and again earlier this year.You are proceeding just as you did with aged care, trying to elevate this issue into a scare campaign. You have done more harm to child care providers in this country by your outrageous scare campaign than any constructive policy considerations of the needs of Australian families. We are addressing their needs. We extended child care assistance to outside school hours care, which previously you did not do anything about. The people who are providing care in this country in child care know that we are the ones who are concerned about the long-term security and future of providers but, more importantly, are providing meaningful and real choice for Australian families.51295129Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Given the ongoing affects of the Asian crisis on inbound tourism, can the minister explain what the government is doing to ensure that the tourism industry, which is a prominent industry in my electorate of Eden-Monaro, remains viable and prosperous?5130Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—Mr Speaker, I join with you in welcoming members of the parliament of New Zealand visiting Australia. In doing so, I note that the growth rate of tourists from New Zealand is very high. Indeed, it is in the low teens. Ladies and gentlemen, you are most welcome in our country. While you are here, if you have some spare time, I urge you to consider a holiday in this country and, in particular, in the seat of Eden-Monaro, not far from the capital city of Canberra where we sit now.8I4MARTINMr Martin—It will only cost you $2 to have tea and scones with the local member.MG4LEEMr Lee—He charges $2.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham and the member for Dobell! If members of the opposition front bench would just wait for afternoon tea until later, we might allow the Minister for Sport and Tourism to respond. Members of opposition will remain silent!FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—It is one of those parts of Australia where on the same day you can catch yellowfin tuna and ski some of the best ski fields in the Southern Hemisphere. In the last couple of days the member for Eden-Monaro and I, when meeting a delegation of tourism leaders from his electorate, discussed the third of the three great initiatives the Howard-Fischer government has taken to deliver to the tourism industry both the support it needs in a time of some difficulty and also the opportunity to prosper in the years hence. This is the government's national action plan for tourism, which I announced last week in Melbourne. It is a road map for the tourism industry for the future, divided largely into three sections: dealing with the selling and promoting of Australia; dealing with the sorts of measures we have to undertake in government to make it a more competitive industry; and the sorts of measures, likewise, across all portfolios to better prepare people working in enterprises in the tourism industry to prosper in the future.The tourism industry has opportunities; it also has threats. One of those threats is a party that wants to strengthen the role of trade unions in small business. Nothing could be more pernicious for people seeking to prosper in the tourism industry. Likewise, there are people in the political arena who would do other things or put forward policies that would give the impression beyond our borders that we do not welcome people from overseas. Nothing could be further from the truth.51305130Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. Can the minister confirm that on 21 January this year he promised the Australian printing industry that he would respond to their concerns about negative assistance `in the near future'? Can he also confirm that, almost six months later, he has still provided no response and that this has caused the printing industry to tell him:It is precisely this kind of inaction that gives rise to the increasing success of fringe parties such as One Nation that appeal to the frustrations felt by the community and business alike.Minister, why haven't you lifted a finger to safeguard the hundreds of printing industry jobs in regional centres such as Maryborough in Victoria?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the members of the opposition, having asked a question, might wait for the answer.5130Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—I am very pleased that the member for Hotham has asked a question on industry, because it is the first since November 1997. He had to find one very small area, which the government has moved towards—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He is irrelevant almost, but this was his commitment, and this question was very specific. It is clear that he has no intention of going to it because he has not got an answer. He has ignored Maryborough.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume his seat! The proceedings of this House allow for the raising of a point of order. That was not a point of order, and I do not accept it as formal. It was entirely irrelevant, and if that happens again I suggest to the honourable member that he will not be remaining in this House. EI4Mr MOORE—Mr Speaker, I will repeat what I said before: it is the first question asked by the member for Hotham, as opposition spokesman for industry, to the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism since 1997.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—You are never here?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question. And the member for Prospect will cease interjecting.EI4Mr MOORE—That is not a bad effort for your interest in industry. The government is concerned that there are some areas of industry which are subject to negative assistance, and some parts of the printing area have been subject to negative assistance. As a consequence of that, the department and I are currently working on a submission in that very area.51315131Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Given the importance of lifelong learning for lifting the skills of Australia's work force, what action has the government taken to increase access to tertiary education? What success has the government had in increasing participation in tertiary education?5131Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—If lifelong learning is going to be a reality, it has to be a reality for all Australians. One of the unfortunate consequences of the failure of the previous government to expand educational opportunity was that many Australians came out of schooling without the fundamental literacy and numeracy skills. As the member for Sydney has admitted on a number of occasions now, the 70 per cent of students who were not going from school to university were neglected, and there were insufficient opportunities offered through the apprenticeship system because the trade union movement was keen to put in place an apprenticeship system under its control.This government has given priority to building a ladder to better skills and better education for all Australians. We have done that through literacy and numeracy. We have done it particularly through the area of post-secondary education. Since 1995 one of the great achievements of this government has been that the number of young people doing vocational education in schools has increased from 26,000 to 110,000—an increase of 88,000 opportunities for those young people neglected by the previous government. There are now more than two million Australians in post-secondary education—since 1995 an increase of 110,000. That includes some 62,000 in new apprenticeships, some 40,000 additional people in TAFE and some 51,000 extra in Australian universities.This government is committed to educational opportunity. It is committed to building the ladder for all Australians, whether they are going on to university or not, to lift the level of their skills and to provide a firm foundation for lifelong learning so they can have careers which will maintain them jobs in a highly competitive world. This is one of the great achievements of this government, and it remedies a very serious failure of the previous Labor government.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice513151315131Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—Briefly, on 3 June I answered a question in relation to unauthorised boat arrivals. I advised the House at that time that I thought there were 13 people in detention as boat arrivals. I am in fact advised that the number on that day was 18. As of today, there are 28 unauthorised boat arrivals in detention.Personal Explanations513114:59:005131Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON—Yes, I do.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Proceed.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON—An article appeared in today's issue of Vema , a Greek language newspaper in Sydney. I have only received a fairly rough translation of the views attributed to me in the article, but it is clear that I have been grievously misrepresented. The article asserts that, in the wake of the Queensland election result, I favour a departure from the Labor Party's long held commitment to multiculturalism. Of course, this is completely untruthful, as all my speeches and statements, including last night's in this chamber, establish beyond doubt.Questions to the Speaker513251325132Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—Mr Speaker, are you aware that I was recently advised by the Leader of the House, Mr Reith, on 15 June that it was not the prerogative of the government to determine when private members' bills are scheduled for debate in the House but rather the responsibility of the Selection Committee? Isn't it a fact that the Leader of the House can provide debating time for private members' bills in government business time as he did for the euthanasia bill?5132Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member for Lowe should know that matters that are the responsibility of the Leader of the House are not the responsibility of the Speaker. It is not for me to determine, therefore, matters that are outside my province.51325132Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Under standing order 150, I would ask that you write to the Minister for Health and Family Services seeking a response to my questions on notice of 25 March 1998 Nos 2802, 2803 and 2804 and also a question placed on notice on 26 March, which is question No. 2806.5132Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall do as the honourable member requests.51325132Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Under standing order 150, I also request that you write to the Prime Minister on the question I have outstanding, question No. 2196 from 3 September 1997, as well as question No. 2705 to the Prime Minister from 3 March 1998. I also request an answer to my question No. 2858 from the Minister for Transport and Regional Develop ment from 6 April 1998. I require your assistance in that regard, Mr Speaker.5132Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write to each of the ministers and the Prime Minister accordingly.51325132Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Similarly, under standing order 150, I request that the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security respond to question No. 2720 and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs respond to question No. 2874, which were placed on the paper on 5 March and 7 April respectively.5132Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write to them, as the honourable member for Reid requests.Miscellaneous513210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present a copy of a resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on 26 February 1998 marking the 50th anniversary of the first sitting of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.Auditor-General's Reports513210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 47 of 1997-98 entitled Performance audit: management of Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort .Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 47 of 1997-98; and(2) the report be printed.Documents51325132Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—Standing Committee—Report—Torres Strait Islanders: A new deal—Greater autonomy for Torres Strait Islanders, August 1997—Government response, June 1998. Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand—Record and resolutions—12th meeting, Hobart, 27 February 1998.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal Employment Opportunity Program—Federal Airports Corporation (FAC)—Report for 1997.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Reports—From Empire to partnership: Seminar on the Commonwealth of Nations, 20 August 1997, October 1997—Government response, June 1998.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman: Public seminars 20 and 25 September 1996, March 1997—Government response.National Health and Medical Research Council Act—National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants 1998.Report for 1997.Ministerial Statements5133513315:04:005133Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—by leave—It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to table this progress report on the implementation of the government's health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas. The report covers the period from 1 November 1996 to 31 March 1998. The health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas was my portfolio's response to the government's election commitment to improve the services provided to people living in rural and remote areas of Australia. The development of a health policy for rural veterans was also one of my major personal priorities when I became Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I made this matter a priority for a number of reasons.Firstly, I knew from my own personal experience as a representative of a rural electorate that health services and facilities in rural areas were not as accessible as they were in the cities. Secondly, it was evident that with the inevitable ageing of veterans their health was becoming increasingly critical to their quality of life. Thirdly, rural Australia is the chosen home of many veterans and their families. Many took up soldier settler blocks after the world wars and others simply returned to the regions from where they had been recruited.The end result was that, by October 1996, 106,600, or 31.6 per cent, of the veterans, war widows and dependants entitled to health care benefits through my department lived outside the major metropolitan areas. By 31 March 1998 this number had increased to 108,592, or 31.9 per cent, an increase which may be due to the improved awareness of entitlements.The health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas was developed to provide innovative and cost effective ways to make information and health and community services more accessible to members of the veteran community living in rural and remote Australia. Initiatives outlined in the policy were to be implemented within existing resources.The goals of the policy were to maintain and improve the health and wellbeing of the veteran community in rural and remote areas and also to increase the awareness of the Department of Veterans' Affairs entitlements and services among the veteran community and health care providers in rural and remote areas. In the implementation of the policy we took into account the unique characteristics of rural and remote Australia—the extreme and harsh climate, the physical and social isolation, the immobility of the population, the lack of public transport, the close-knit nature of communities, and the limited and often low quality communication services.The policy spelt out what we could do to make more health services available, to promote awareness of preventive care measures and to improve communication with the veteran community and health care providers. Simply put, it all boils down to access, information and communication. Improving access to services is an important part of the better rural health equation. Providing better health information and building communication channels is equally important and complementary. During the reporting period, one of my personal highlights was presenting the keynote speech at the 4th National Rural Health Conference in Perth in February 1997. As I said then, the government is acutely aware and appreciative of the role played by rural doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, community nurses, voluntary workers and health administrators in striving to meet the health needs of those who live outside our capital cities.In developing the health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas, we identified 10 priority areas which need attention. These areas spelt out in the policy include: firstly, improved access to health care services in local communities which have limited and sparsely distributed services and facilities; secondly, more flexible transport arrangements for veterans who need to travel long distances for treatment; thirdly, improved planning and delivery of the department's services, particularly in remote areas; and, fourthly, the improvement in the flow of information to the veteran community and health care providers about available health care services and entitlements.The progress report focuses on action undertaken and proposed in these 10 priority areas. I am pleased to report that since I announced the policy on 16 October 1996 much has been achieved.During the development of the policy, I had the opportunity of visiting several of Australia's most remote communities, including Thursday Island to visit the Torres Strait Islanders, to see for myself the service delivery challenges they were facing. The report notes the development of some very innovative service delivery initiatives, sponsored by my department, in many of these communities.I would like to briefly describe some of the most significant of these initiatives highlighted in the report. One hundred thousand copies of A guide to services for the veteran community in rural and remote areas have been published and distributed. The feedback on the guide, including letters of commendation, indicates that this publication has raised the awareness of the department's services with veterans as well as health and community care providers.Support for rural ex-service organisations, ESOs, has been increased, in some cases providing motivation for groups to continue. Podiatry clinics on Thursday Island and Norfolk Island have been introduced. The numbers of mental health counsellors providing counselling services in rural areas has been increased to over 240 nationally. Annual health care plans have been introduced through doctors in various rural and remote areas, thereby providing more comprehensive care to veterans with complex and chronic medical conditions.The repatriation transport guidelines have been improved to assist veterans in rural and remote areas who have to travel long distances for medical treatment. The guidelines recognise the importance of support from family and friends in the treatment and recovery of veterans who are ill by providing assistance to help meet the costs of an attendant's accommodation or return travel while the veteran is receiving treatment away from home.Local government agents have been contracted to provide information services in country areas. For example, the Mildura Rural City Council now provides information services in Mildura and the Sunraysia region. The Queensland Government Agents Program, QGAP, the New South Wales Government Access Centres, NGAC, and the Australian Country Information Service, ACIS, are also now providing Department of Veterans' Affairs information services in many country regions throughout Australia, as is Centrelink in Wagga Wagga, Orange, Tamworth and Rockhampton. We are assisting local veteran groups through seeding grants, training and support to establish veterans' information centres in Murray Bridge and Port Lincoln in South Australia, as well as in Alice Springs.Funding and expertise are being provided to community organisations so that they can provide programs and services for the veteran community. Examples include: funding a respite holiday program for veterans and their carers in Queensland; training two Aboriginal welfare officers in Northern Queensland and two in Western Australia to provide information on Department of Veterans' Affairs services to their communities; funding the establishment of a `one telephone number' central information and referral service for older people in the Clarence Valley of New South Wales to assist members of the veteran community to access the wide range of community services, including residential and in-home respite places in the region, and providing funding for a range of volunteer based services to veterans and carers within the Bridgetown-Greenbushes shire in Western Australia.Finally, the number of training information program courses conducted in rural areas has been increased. More than 2,750 people, mainly volunteer ex-service pension and welfare officers, have attended in excess of 59 courses in rural areas since November 1996.Looking to the future, the government will continue to assist veterans in accessing health services by working with rural communities, local health care providers, and ex-service and community groups. While we will continue to address all 10 priority areas, particular focus will be given to further improving the availability of timely and accurate information in rural areas.Initiatives planned for 1998 and beyond include further expansion of our network of advice and information services to fill the current gaps in these services in rural Australia. This includes the direct provision of information and advice on veterans' entitlements to services through contracting more government agencies such as some rural Centrelink offices or by the use of `information kiosks' in the various state-run Government Access Centres and the Australian Country Information Service.This year, agent agreements have been entered into for the Queensland towns of Emerald, Roma and Rockhampton and, in Tasmania, Smithton and Queenstown will be serviced through the Service Tasmania Project. Our training and information program courses for ex-service organisation pension and welfare officers will be increased. Refresher courses will be available in some areas for those participants who were trained some time ago.We will soon be introducing an online information system known as DVA FACTS which will build on the success of A guide to services for the veteran community in rural and remote areas. The system will enable rural veterans to access detailed, up-to-date information on the department's programs and services, either through offices of the department, its agents or the Internet.What I have spoken about today is just a snapshot of the many rural and remote initiatives being implemented within my portfolio. I recommend that you take a closer look at the report. Improving services in rural and remote areas will continue to be a major priority of the government's. We do not accept that the price of living outside our capital or major regional cities means doing without reasonable standards of services, especially when such services can be made available with an appropriate degree of commitment, coordination and creative planning. I believe that our experience translates well to the general community and provides a valuable model for delivery of health services to the broader community and, in particular, to the aged.Finally, I would like to thank veterans and service providers in rural and remote areas of Australia for the important contribution they have made to the development and continuing implementation of the health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs for their enthusiasm, hard work and commitment to improving the quality of life of veterans living in rural and remote areas. I commend the report to the parliament.15:16:005135Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—by leave—In October 1996 the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) made a ministerial statement detailing the government's policy entitled `Health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas'. This afternoon's statement is essentially a progress report on the 1996 report, covering the period November 1996 to March 1998.Whilst Australia's repatriation system has many strengths, historically it has suffered from an excessive degree of centralisation, with its public presence restricted to massive offices in capital city central business districts and a small number of designated repatriation hospitals. The location of these facilities was often as problematic for veterans and their families living in outer suburban areas and regional cities as it was for veterans living in what could properly be described as rural and remote areas.Over the last decade or so, we have seen praiseworthy efforts to reverse this trend. Specialist services such as Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service offices have long been established in suburban and regional sites that broadly reflect the distribution of the Vietnam veteran community. Veterans' Affairs Network—VAN—offices have been established in a considerable number of centres. And of course entitled veterans can now, with some variation from state to state, access private patient hospital treatment through a considerable number of public and contracted private hospitals.Many of these service delivery models still, however, required a critical mass of veterans in order to be economical and effective. They were therefore most suited to significant regional centres like Townsville, Wollongong or Launceston. There is thus the problem of devising ways of providing adequate support to veterans in rural and remote areas. The DVA's definition of these is `non-metropolitan areas which have populations of less than 100,000'. It is appropriate to acknowledge that some 30 per cent of the veterans treatment population—that is, veterans, war widows and dependants entitled to health care through DVA—live in such areas. It is also clear that this definition covers centres that are themselves diverse. Not all are inland and some would generally be considered small cities rather than rural towns.The opposition acknowledges that more could and should be done for veterans in rural and remote areas. All veterans are entitled to enjoy ready access to both information and services. As shadow minister I am happy to acknowledge the enthusiasm of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his commitment to progressing this particular policy agenda.A particularly notable statistic in the 1996 policy statement was that 40 per cent of the veterans living in rural and remote areas were aged 75 years or over—42,000 of 106,000. This at least partly reflects the fact that rural Australia was an important source of enlistment during the Second World War. It was therefore appropriate that a key component of the strategy was on preventive health care measures focusing on an increasingly frail generation of veterans.Many of the detailed measures outlined in the 1996 statement were also small scale and focused on named locations. In saying this I am not implying criticism of the government. It is sensible to identify what is achievable and realistic and not to raise excessive expectations that cannot be feasibly met in the immediate future.You can best review progress on reform measures in the light of the announced goals for them. In this regard, the 1996 policy statement said that the goals were:to maintain and improve the health and well being of the veteran community in rural and remote areas; and increase the awareness of DVA entitlements and services among the veteran community and health care providers in rural and remote areas.To address these goals, 10 priority areas for action were identified: improved access to, and availability of, health care and support services in the local community; more flexible transport arrangements for entitled veterans who require health care outside their local community; increased focus on health education and preventive care; improved planning and delivery of DVA services, particularly in remote areas; better information for the veteran community and health care providers about DVA entitlements and the range of health care services; greater support for groups who have special needs within the veteran community; greater support for health care providers; greater support for ex-service organisations; better information and support on housing assistance; and better information about income support and disability compensation. At this juncture it is not possible for me to make an immediate and definitive assessment on progress, as the actual report arrived shortly before question time. I can acknowledge that some worthwhile things are happening, in particular with the enhancements to the repatriation transport guidelines and the trialling of various models of providing outreach information services to veterans in rural areas.I would like to canvass some of the other issues that have been raised with me by veterans in rural and remote areas. Amongst Vietnam veterans, in particular, there are still clear difficulties in accessing specialist services, particularly for psychiatric conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Even in large regional cities such as Townsville, veterans have reported to me—and the minister has not disputed this—that local specialists have not been keen to perform such work and those that do cannot cope with the level of demand. The alternatives facing veterans are either to visit capital city specialists, which is disruptive and costly to the taxpayer, or to decide that it is not worth the bother, which could have long-term adverse consequences for veterans, their families and the wider community.I turn next to domiciliary nursing services for veterans. These are an important support to veterans who have been discharged from hospital or are terminally ill. The minister's statement makes no reference to the reform of DVA's funding arrangements for private nursing agencies, reforms that came into effect last year. Without debating the details of this somewhat complex issue, I note that the agencies that have approached me with concerns about these reforms have overwhelming been those based in rural areas, particularly in New South Wales. This is an issue that requires continuing scrutiny to ensure that there is no reduction in the level and nature of nursing care that veterans receive, as guaranteed by the minister. I am afraid to say that this guarantee has not always been reflected in the feedback I have received from individual veterans and service groups. I also note that veterans in rural and remote areas are not immune from the coalition's broader cuts. These broader cuts mean that veterans, while finding it easier to make contact with DVA, then find it harder to gain legal aid to the required degree because of Commonwealth cuts or to obtain adequate public hospital care. If and when they need access to a nursing home, they now face paying the hefty annual entry fee for five years, totalling $20,000 in many cases.In conclusion, the 1996 policy statement contained worthwhile initiatives. Indications of some progress cannot be disputed. They must, however, be viewed in the context of the impact of changes in nursing home care, pharmaceutical benefits and legal aid which daily affect rural veterans. The minister must ensure that the hyperbole is matched by actual budget dollars, given the scant reference to expenditure in the report, lest it be thought that these aspects are actually just a shuffling of the cards rather than the introduction of new initiatives.Bills5137Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill:Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 1) 1998Matters of Public Importance5137513710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to safeguard the security of regional communities.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:25:005137Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Let the House note that not one National Party backbencher is in the parliament and only one Liberal backbencher is in the parliament—this from a government that came to power promising to recharge our regions. Under this government, regional Australians have experienced savage cuts, the removal of vital services and the loss of the businesses and industries that made their communities prosper. The government has not recharged the regions; it has betrayed them and it has abandoned them.Labor took a big defeat in the regions in the last election. It held only seven of the 51 seats. One of Labor's mistakes in government was to talk about the big picture and simply assume that regions would understand how they fitted in. It was Canberra imposing on the regions, not empowering them. But we have listened and we have learnt. The big picture is still important, but we have to construct it from the ground up, encouraging each region to develop its piece of the mosaic.That approach has meant Labor involving itself with communities in the development of the agenda for each community; an agenda owned by the community and one which Labor and only Labor is prepared to back. This election will be fought on a number of different levels, but none more important than the local agendas. Whilst jobs are priority one in the national campaign, strategies and solutions to secure and grow job opportunities in our regions are really what matter.On 17 July 1996, the member for Hume (Mr Sharp), then the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, said:There is no clear rationale or constitutional basis for Commonwealth involvement in regional development.That was an extraordinary admission by a senior minister—and a National Party minister at that. The government did not see a role, did not see a need and did not see an opportunity. But it is not just selling out regions; the government sees a diminished role in child care, in schools and universities, in nursing homes, in the provision of pharmaceuticals to our elderly, and a diminished role in the provision of unemployment programs to get young people back into work.This government is not just pursuing a lesser role for government but also introduc ing in every one of those areas a user-pays principle. From the cradle to the grave, this government is about slugging communities and their constituents. It has done that in the pursuit of a surplus—a budget surplus at any cost; a budget surplus regardless of the consequences. Labor was capable of producing budget surpluses, but we were also prepared to run a deficit if it was important to run a deficit to get growth, to get regions going and to get opportunities going. This government has an ideological fixation with budgets and budget surpluses regardless of the consequences.This government destroyed the $150 million regional development program. It abolished the infrastructure fund. It froze infrastructure bonds, but it did not tell anyone before the election that it was going to do it. Quite the contrary; it said it was going to keep all of them. It also destroyed and silenced the voice of regional communities who were developing a capacity to speak through regional structures; organisations that Labor backed then and which Labor will back again when it is returned to government.It also promised to hold regular cabinet meetings in the bush. In its first two years in office, it has met just three times outside capital cities. It slashed funding to regional universities. It closed regional CES, Medicare and tax offices. It watched as bank branches vanished from regional towns. It destroyed vital job opportunities. It will be introducing the common youth allowance in less than two weeks and cutting up to $87 per week from the family entitlement, putting added pressure on families in regions where youth unemployment is over 40 per cent in some areas. It will be introducing it with the support of the Independent member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), who voted for that change.In sharp contrast to the Howard government, Labor does see a vital role for government in regional development. We are committed to empowering regions to develop their agendas. We believe in supporting regional structures to help regional communities develop and implement those agendas. We consider that government must equip communities with expertise to assess the feasibility of projects and more effectively connect good, viable regional initiatives that stack up and connect them to the financial markets. In particular, this will let them develop access to venture capital with a regional focus.We are also committed to restoring support for infrastructure in the regions, not just through the re-establishment of the infrastructure fund but also through ensuring that the cap and scope of the infrastructure bonds are widened. We will increase the cap and widen the scope. At the moment, this government's bonds only apply to road and rail infrastructure. Anyone who knows anything about regional development knows that it is not just road and rail that is important for infrastructure.Whilst I am on the topic of infrastructure, there is no more important infrastructure needed in regional Australia today than access to telecommunications technology. But what has this government done? It is determined to sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. This, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would probably well know, will cause immeasurable damage to people and businesses in regional Australia already suffering from delays in getting connections and service under a one-third privatised Telstra.What incentive will a fully privatised Telstra have to provide good service levels to unprofitable rural customers let alone provide new telecommunications technologies? Nothing in the bill before the parliament requires new technologies to be made available to regional Australia. Regional Australians will have their telecommunications networks frozen in time. They will be left behind again by this government. Up to 35 per cent of Telstra may be owned by as few as seven overseas companies under this government's proposal. No shareholder in Tokyo, London or New York will be concerned about the lack of access to the Internet in Lismore. Why should they? They are after the same bottom line that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) is after. They could not care less about the impact in the community.In addition, the lean, mean corporate Telstra will continue the extraordinary job shedding that we have seen as a result of the one-third part privatisation, with over 16,000 jobs lost in the last 18 months, many of them in regional centres. How will this benefit regional Australia? As a demonstration of Labor's commitment to oppose the sale of Telstra, not just for the election but into the future, and to lock in that opposition, we have announced through the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) on Sunday that an ongoing and fixed proportion of the Telstra dividend will be paid into a fund. Part of that fund will be used for regional development and nation building.There is an important connection between industry policy and regional development, but the Howard government does not care about that connection. This is a government that stood by and watched BHP announce the closure of its steel operations in Newcastle. It watched Amcor announce its planned closure of the pulp mill in Burnie, and it did nothing. On steel, Labor is committed to a metal fabrication industry plan. We argued successfully for a parliamentary committee which recommended the same, but the Howard government ignored the calls. In the words of the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, `Black Jack' Moore, `It is not proposed that the government will respond to it.' That is their commitment to the steel plan for not only Newcastle but also other steel centres around the country.But Labor is committed to such a plan just as we are committed to developing an industry plan for the forest products industry. It will complement the regional forest agreements process. What is the point of securing an ecologically sustainable way of utilising our resource if we are not prepared to value add it? Yet this government has allowed the reverse. The closure of the Burnie mill will see more woodchips exported and no value adding taking place. It is perverse.This lack of action on the industry policy front has not only hit Newcastle and Burnie; it threatens Shoalhaven, Maryvale, Whyalla and Port Hedland. The government's decisions on the book and ship bounties threatened regional centres in Tasmania, Maryborough and Fremantle until Labor led the campaign for their restoration, just as we led the campaign on cars and textiles. The mem ber for Oxley supported the government's decision to end the book bounty, voting for the legislation. She did not even bother to turn up in relation to the ship bounty vote. In all these cases, we have argued that the regional impact was too severe to justify the government's decisions. We sought amendments to the Industry Commission legislation to mandate that it have regard to regional impacts. The government voted these amendments down. So did the member for Oxley.In the case of cars and textiles, we were able to secure reciprocal obligations from the manufacturers on growth in investment, jobs, net exports and research and development. These are commitments that can in turn be translated into commitments to regional growth, localising the impact, if you like, to ensure that prosperity, security and job opportunity growth is translated to the regions. It is about the big picture with a local dimension. That is what we would do in government across a whole range of industries. We would secure commitments to higher growth through a more interventionist industry policy built around reciprocal obligations.The policy would enable regions to get a slice of the action by value adding and combining our natural resource strengths with our skill and innovation base. Our innovation base has also sadly been let down by the massive cuts that this government subjected it to two years ago. Now the scorecard is in on that too. There is declining investment in research and development by the private sector.If Labor wins office at the next election, we would as a matter of urgency call in the parties in the steel industry and in the pulp and paper industries. Together, we would develop in partnership the appropriate growth strategies for those industries, based on new investment, based on innovation, based on the growth coming from net exports, and based on a commitment to job opportunities.Regional Australia is losing services that city residents take for granted. Banks are closing branches at a rate of knots, leaving individuals and businesses without access to even basic banking services, let alone complex financial and investment advisory services. Australia Post remains in many areas, with over 5,000 retail post outlets across Australia, but the government has refused to rule out deregulating Australia's postal services. Today, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) refused to say where the $67 million in cross-subsidy now paid by Australia Post would come from if the deregulation occurred in its most profitable activities.This is a government that does not accept responsibility to guarantee the provision of accessible and affordable postal services for all Australians. What they want to do is to allow deregulation, and the private sector to move in. They are hardly likely to go for less profitable areas in regional Australia. Why would they? Why would they unless they have a government commitment to do it? Instead, they will move into Australia Post's profitable urban services, leaving Australia Post to pick up the tab in the bush. They will not be able to do it. With decreased profits, Australia Post will have no choice but to reduce services. Bush post offices will close. You cannot believe the Prime Minister when he says it will not happen.JT4BAILEYMrs Bailey—Rubbish!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You say, `Rubbish,' but he said two years ago there would be no GST. He said, `Come back in two years and ask me again.'BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Never, ever.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He said, `Never, ever.' How can anyone believe him on anything? This was the Prime Minister who deceived rural Australia on the last occasion. This was the Prime Minister who said he would not cut their services, and he did. He hid it from the Australian public, just as he has hidden the GST from the Australian public, just as he has hidden what he is going to do to Australia Post. This is a government that deceived Australia at the regional level. It betrayed them. It is a government that should be turfed out at the next election. (Time expired)PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I think that will do for the policy speech.15:40:005140Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) just said, we have just listened to the policy speech of the member for Hotham (Mr Crean). People in regional Australia will never, ever forget what the Labor Party did to them during the 13 years that the Labor Party were in office. Mr Deputy Speaker, you well know, being a representative of a regional seat, the impact of what the Labor Party did during their 13 years in office and what their high interest rate regime did to regional Australia.We have just heard the member for Hotham crying at the dispatch box about the damage that has been done to manufacturing industries, to small business and to exporters and primary producers in regional Australia by this government, and that has not happened. We have worked with regional Australia on all our policy objectives to assist everybody in regional Australia on the basis of a whole of government focus across all portfolios—not just a single focus, as the previous government had. They thought that regional Australia meant the outer suburbs of the cities of Australia. That is where they spent the money that they maintained that they spent on regional Australia, but at the same time they ran the highest interest rate regime this country has ever seen. That had an absolutely incredibly devastating effect on everybody who lives, works and runs businesses in regional Australia.The most significant thing that our government—the Howard-Fischer government—has done for regional Australia is to tackle that interest rate situation that we inherited, along with the economic settings that we inherited in 1996. The interest rate set-up in Australia when we came to power in 1996 was not an accident. We are managing the economy at the moment in a situation where there is very low growth in Asia. The Labor Party managed an economy with high interest rates when the growth rates of our near neighbours in Asia were at record levels, yet they ran these high interest rate regimes that had an absolutely devastating effect on regional Australia. We saw record bankruptcies in small businesses in regional Australia; there were record bankruptcies in small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises; and there were record bankruptcies of small farmers and primary producers in regional Australia. There is absolutely nowhere in Australia where the Labor Party can hide from that record.It is illustrated best in an article written by Max Walsh in the Sydney Morning Herald called `A pocketful of wry from the Reserve'. He quoted from the biography of Paul Keating written by John Edwards titled Keating: The Inside Story. I will quote a passage from that book which talks about how the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, handled monetary policy in this country and how it was absolutely no accident that we saw the high interest rates that slaughtered everybody in regional Australia when the Labor Party was in power for 13 years. I quote:Keating had returned from the summer holiday all fired up about the way in which Noosa was full of bulldozers. He wanted the Reserve to lift rates by 2 percentage points in one hit.The Reserve procrastinated but, under daily urging from Don Russell, lifted the rate by 1.75 percentage points.Between March 1988 and November 1989, the cash rate was lifted by nearly 8 percentage points—I repeat: eight percentage points—with Paul Keating cracking the whip. Rates were pushed too high for too long.Then, at the end of 1989, Don Russell—and we all remember Don Russell, the chief adviser of the former Prime Minister and Treasurer—(as he told a seminar a few years later) heard the economy snap: not a slowdown or a steady decline, but an audible snap.It was no accident, under the management of the Australian Labor Party of the Australian economy, that we suffered from those high interest rates, and the people of regional Australia will never, ever forget. There is nowhere in this country that the Australian Labor Party can hide from that record.There was an interesting quote the morning after the Treasurer (Mr Costello) announced the budget this year. This is the importance of low interest rates and what our government is doing for regional Australia in providing security for regional Australia. That is what this MPI is all about: security and a prosperous future for regional Australia. We are providing the right economic environment, underpinned by a low interest rate regime in Australia, so that people working, operating businesses and producing and exporting out of regional Australia can do that in a stable environment. That is what provides security in regional Australia. The New South Wales Farmers Association spokesman, Mr Mick Keogh, said in the Sydney Morning Herald on the morning of 13 May 1998:With an average farm debt of $130,000, a 1 per cent hike in interest rates costs the farm sector $80-$100 million per annum . . . The `big picture' stuff is worth more to the average farmer than micro-economic grants.They are the grants the Australian Labor Party talks about, the grants that were run under 13 years of Labor. The farm sector are more interested in the big picture stuff, they are more interested in ensuring they have a stable economic environment to operate within, as well as a government that is working to expand their export marketplace.So a one per cent reduction in interest rates is worth an enormous amount of money to not only the farm sector in Australia but also small business in regional Australia. For a $100,000 variable interest rate business loan, a 2½ per cent reduction in interest rates is worth $2½ thousand a year to that small business. That can mean an enormous amount to the survival of that small business.It is interesting to note that the Labor spokesman, the member for Hotham, moved this MPI. I referred to what the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, was doing to regional Australia with interest rates, and it is interesting to note what the member for Hotham's position was in that government. He happened to be the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. There was the Minister Assisting the Treasurer driving up interest rates under the leadership of Paul Keating, and he is in here today crying about what this government is doing to regional Australia. Regional Australia knows that the Howard-Fischer government has provided them with a low, stable interest rate regime in this country.I will give one further example on interest rates that is incredibly important to regional Australia, particularly in the transport sector. In my area, I have a large transport operator, Jim Pearson Transport. If he goes out to buy a prime mover truck for $250,000, it is not just that he is paying less than half the interest that he was paying under Labor—he was paying in excess of 20 per cent on those borrowings under Labor—but that he is paying less than 10 per cent under the coalition government. That is providing the security and the stability in regional Australia for those businesses to prosper, to do well and to provide jobs. That is the most important thing that the Howard-Fischer government has done for regional Australia, and we must never lose sight of that fact.I will repeat again: there is nowhere in Australia that the Labor Party can go and hide from its record of 13 years of mismanagement of the economy, which had a dramatic impact on regional Australia and did nothing but provide insecurity and bankruptcies in regional Australia. You will never ever get away from that history and that track record.It was interesting to note through question time today also that members of the opposition were talking about different towns around Australia and how it was going to affect this area and how it was going to affect that area. Since I have been the Minister for Transport and Regional Development over the last nine months, I have been around regional Australia. I have been around regional Australia talking about the circumstances of regional Australia under the current environment, some of their problems with regard to transport infrastructure and how we can help in assisting them to do much better.I have also been talking to the local government bodies. As well, the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay) has been around a lot of areas. I will just instance that I have been to the electorates of Richmond, Grey, Northern Territory, Parkes, Calare, Capricornia, Maranoa, Groom, Hinkler, New England, McEwen, McMillan, Farrer, Braddon, Kennedy, McPherson, Herbert, Leichhardt, Dawson, Braddon, Riverina, Canning, Pearce, Ballarat and Page, to name just a few, as well as my own electorate of Lyne, which is in regional Australia.I am a minister who comes from regional Australia. I used to run a business in regional Australia. One of the main motivating factors that put me into this parliament was the fact that, when I was running a business in regional Australia during the 1980s, I nearly died. My business was nearly crucified by the high interest rates that were forced up by the Australian Labor Party when in government here.Whilst I have been travelling around regional Australia, we know where the member for Hotham has been. The member for Hotham has not been around regional Australia; he has been down on the wharfs with the MUA. He has been down there playing cricket on the picket. How is the fast bowling going, Simon?Here is the Australian Labor Party supporting the Maritime Union of Australia, who have done their damnedest to absolutely crucify the manufacturers and exporters of regional Australia to the extent where the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), the member for Hotham and the rest of the members of the Labor Party support what the MUA and their cohorts in the United States did with regard to sending 40 tonnes of Australian beef, produced by some poor beef producer in regional Australia desperately trying to get some export income into his pocket to pay his bank loan back and to pay his kids' school fees in regional Australia, and you are sitting over there in collaboration with the Maritime Union of Australia stopping those exports getting to the export marketplace.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, that's not right.SU5Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILE—You were. You sat there and you collaborated with them. That is what you were doing while we were consulting operators, producers and small business people in regional Australia. As I say, the Labor Party has nowhere to hide on this issue.There are a number of other areas on which our government is totally focused in support of regional Australia. In this year's budget, in the 1998 budget, there was $3.5 billion worth of spending for regional Australia. The first thing was the Natural Heritage Trust fund. Remember that? One of the commitments we made at the federal election in 1996 was that, upon selling the first third of Telstra, we were going to establish a $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust fund. That fund is designed to address the major land degradation problems across rural and regional Australia.Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that earlier this year we were criticised by the Australian Labor Party for the amount of funding out of the Natural Heritage Trust Fund which was being spent in regional Australia. Well, guess what! That is where a lot of the environmental problems that we are trying to address actually exist—they happen to be in regional Australia. The Australian Labor Party opposed our spending of that money in regional Australia. For weeks and weeks, they asked questions in this place. They forced an inquiry. They criticised this government for the areas in which we were spending that money; and yet they are in here today moving an MPI about our lack of support for regional Australia!To give one classic example, our government has provided $700,000-odd dollars to the Wallis Lake area in my electorate, where there has been a health scare about the oyster industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know only too well that the scare was propagated by the Labor Party in New South Wales through its environment minister, Pam Allen, and that it was an absolute beat-up. There has been no scientific evidence to establish that the origin of that outbreak of hepatitis was the area that she alluded to, but we have provided Natural Heritage Trust Fund money to improve the management of the Wallis Lake estuary in that area.We have committed a billion dollars through the Federation Fund. We have heard from the Labor Party spokesman this afternoon, in the MPI, about regional telecommunications. We have established the $250 million regional telecommunications infrastructure fund to address the very problems in regional Australia that were bequeathed to it by 13 years of the Australian Labor Party in government in this country. We have taken action on those problems by allocating that funding to regional Australia.We have established the Agriculture—Advancing Australia policy whereby $500 million will be spent on a number of issues critical to regional Australia, particularly the agricultural producers in regional Australia. One very important element is the $2.7 million allocated to rural and remote communities for credit care. The market forces are creating a situation where the banks are leaving rural areas. We have facilitated an opportunity—through the establishment of the credit care program and through the reforms and restructuring of the financial institutions in Australia—to allow the credit unions to compete on an equal footing with the banking sector. We are seeing those credit unions establish branches to provide that service right throughout rural and regional Australia.We have made the legislative changes that have underpinned the framework to allow those organisations to compete with the banking industries. Rather than regulate from the top, we have provided the framework for credit unions to compete and to provide that service to regional Australia. So it is no good the Labor Party coming in here and crying about rural and regional Australia. There is nowhere for them to hide on this issue. (Time expired)15:55:005144Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It is very interesting that the previous speaker, the Minister for Transport and so-called Regional Development, Mr Vaile, spoke for 10 minutes about interest rates and how they rose over 13 years in the cycle of the Labor government. Of course, if you went back seven years prior to that, they would have risen and fallen also, and they will rise and fall over the next 10 years as well. He spent 10 minutes of his time doing that.He hardly got to anything that his government have done for regional Australia. That is not unusual, because they have done nothing in regional Australia except cut services and remove opportunities. He did mention the National Heritage Trust Fund. They have taken money out of the landcare budget and moved it into that fund and claimed to have done something more than that.Then he mentioned that he did a bit of pork-barrelling in his own electorate—something to do with oysters—and he fixed that up to make himself look like a good bloke. So that is what he has done in regional Australia—very little indeed.I said yesterday in the grievance debate, and I will say it again today, that, given the importance of this matter and the fact that people in rural and regional Australia are suffering hugely under the current policies of this government, I have travelled to a lot of different districts—similar to mine—all over Australia and the message is always the same: why doesn't the government see what they are doing to the people in the country? I can understand only too well why people voted the way they did in the Queensland state election. The government is leaving country towns. They are closing up services such as the employment service, the Medicare offices, schools and hospitals. Everything is being `rationalised'.The private sector and the farmers are suffering because policies are moving away from individual small business to pander to the multinationals. The banks have gone, doctors are leaving and the police are serving bigger and bigger areas and so might as well not be there at all. As a result, companies are leaving and going elsewhere. They are leaving their workers jobless. The heart is being ripped out of small rural towns and their residents are trapped there.Why is it so important to balance the budget when you throw so many out of work? The surplus is $2.7 billion dollars. I wonder how many jobs we could create with that sort of funding.Look at the nursing home situation. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has cut half a billion dollars from that sector and introduced two new fees for people having to enter nursing homes. One of them—the accommodation charge—is particularly cruel to rural people. If someone has more than $44,000 in assets, they have to rent, remortgage or sell the family home. In country areas, and particularly in Tasmania, trying to sell their house is almost impossible because of the decline in those areas. The government has to have its pound of flesh somehow—so it makes the nursing home charge fees, and then it lets the debt grow. Not only is this unfair on the resident but it is pretty hard on the nursing home that is trying to make ends meet—because the government is not paying maintenance costs to these homes any more.To add insult to injury, the government announced a year ago $10 million for urgent capital works. But where is it? I am pleased that the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) is at the table—a colleague from Tasmania. Where is the $10 million that, it was said, would be spent on capital works? Not a cent has been spent, and the idiotic thing is that this government and the minister keep reannouncing it! He keeps reannouncing that they are going to spend $10 million on capital works, but not a cent has been spent yet.This is not good enough. Not only is it not good enough but people from all over Australia are saying, `We cannot go on like this. We are prepared to vote for anyone who can give a glimmer of hope that things could be different.' I do not believe we can go backwards. Change is important. We are living in a different age to the 1950s. Communication is better, travel is cheaper and tastes and interests have changed. Changes are affecting jobs, security and even the way we do things, such as banking and collecting mail. Our expectations have grown too. Our children expect more than they ever did. We teach them that that is what they are to expect, and then we cannot deliver for them.We are getting worried because, although some things are changing about us, the government are not attuned to how that change is effecting everyday life. They are not listening and they are not talking to us. That is what people say to me in my electorate and in other electorates. They say that the government just does not care and, further, that politicians do not care.It is a hard one to argue when the jobs go, the services disappear and many are left isolated in country towns without any options. They cannot afford to leave and they cannot afford to live where they are. If they get sick—well, tough, they will have to wait two years before they can get into a hospital bed. If you want to try to get a loan to improve your business, you could try the bank, but the bank is closed. The head office is in another state now. It hasn't a clue who you are or what you are trying to do to improve your lot in your own town, so the metaphoric door has shut in your face—and of course the real door went some years ago.We the politicians cannot ignore this situation. We cannot shirk our responsibilities to the communities. The government of the day needs to intervene. It needs to be creating new jobs where employment opportunities are scarce. It needs to provide incentives for new enterprises to start. Many locally inspired inventions have come to my attention in recent years but few, if any, get off the ground. Why? Because it is difficult to find local financial backing. They are forced to look overseas for the money.Markets may be the lifeblood of the free enterprise system, but they do not always work efficiently. They suffer from deficiencies, concentrations of market power, differences in wage levels and other imperfections. So, although the private sector can create new local initiatives, a complementary role needs to be played by government, otherwise the system will fail.Look at Amcor in Burnie. The forest industry in Tasmania has taken a beating for over 10 years trying to get resource security so it can supply companies such as Amcor with a regular supply of wood that can be processed in the state. Now it has the wood, but the federal government cannot get its act together to finalise the regional forest agreement or get a proper wood and paper strategy in place. So the company says, `Thanks, guys, but we don't need you any more. You have left the door open and therefore we're leaving. There is no reason to stay. You aren't offering anything, nor are you making us develop the industry in any way. There are no positive things to help develop this industry for downstream processing in Australia. So tough titty. Away we go.' This government has failed. No wonder the whole country is stirring itself and saying, `We have been misled.'Labor has a philosophy and that philosophy encompasses the idea that government has the right to intervene where the market fails. Not only does it have the right but it has a duty to do so. Labor is serious about the changes going on. We believe that we need to keep a close eye on the marketplace along with the people. We need to be there with the safety net when the market fails. We will put the funds back into nursing homes. We will look at developing job programs, better ones than were there before. We are going to strengthen Medicare. We will be helping to provide more child-care places. We want to see the dental services returned and the waiting lists in public hospitals fall. We want to see families realise their expectations. We want the regional areas not only to survive but also to be places where people want to live. We want to put community back into our small towns and we will do everything we can to make sure that happens. We want to see change as a useful, vital and exciting time brimming with opportunities and jobs. We also want to help those less fortunate, allow them a safety net and nurture them back into our communities to become useful and welcome citizens. We will do these things under a Labor government. The other side have failed in government. They have failed by tearing the heart out of regional Australia. They deserve to fail at the election.16:05:005146Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I thought the title of this MPI put forward today by the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) really showed his breathtaking audacity. How could the member for Hotham have the audacity to get up and use the words `security' and `regional communities' in the same sentence when he was a member of the government that absolutely destroyed security in regional areas? In fact, I think it is worth while reminding the members here in this House exactly what the member for Hotham and his former government did to regional areas. I must say that I speak with some authority on this matter because I happen to represent a regional electorate and I live in a regional area. I have lived for the past 22 years in a very tiny rural community.We only have to cast our minds back just a few years to remember the number of farmers who lost their farms because of high interest rates. For those families that did not lose their farms, often the husband had to leave the farm and seek work off farm while his wife was left to manage the farm and the family. Similar stories can be found in just about every small business in rural communities. Families had to pull together, pull in their belts and work so hard just to keep that small family business going and manage their families at the same time. Sadly, many thousands of businesses did not survive, and the effect of the policies of the previous Labor government on small rural communities was catastrophic.When we came to office just over two years ago, the legacy we inherited was those people living in the small regional communities who had been battling for over a decade. They had battled a recession, they had battled high interest rates, they had battled poor prices for their commodities, and in many areas they had battled drought and flood. It was really only the tenacity and courage of those people who lived in those small rural communities that actually kept those small towns going. They were just in survival mode.I listened to the member for Hotham, the first speaker in this MPI debate. He talked about how the previous government concentrated on the big picture. Well, in concentrating on the big picture, they failed to take notice of the detail; all of those details that were tearing small rural communities apart.The member for Hotham also talked about services. He talked about closing Medicare offices. My electorate is approximately 14,500 square kilometres in area. I tell you: I did not have one Medicare office in the entire 14,500 square kilometres. It is sheer hypocrisy for the member for Hotham to get up and start talking about closing Medicare offices in regional areas. I can tell members in this House that this government has placed a real emphasis on regional communities. It has not just devoted one small office or department to looking after regional communities; as the minister has said, it has taken a whole of government approach. What that means is that every single department governed by every single minister in this government has a priority when developing policies to say how these policies are going to be implemented and what effects they are going to have in regional communities.I am very proud to stand here as a member of this government and say that, for the very first time, there are towns in my electorate that have services they never ever had in the 13 years that Labor was in government. The member for Hotham said that this government abolished a $150 million regional development fund. Yes, we did, and we did so for very good reasons. Those funds were not getting through to the regional areas. I have one very large shire in my electorate, the Murrindindi shire. Not one inch of that shire fitted the boundary of a regional development authority, not one square kilometre of it fitted. That example is replicated right across the country.In place of that one small office and department, as I have said, this government has placed a whole of government emphasis on regional communities. We are spending $3.5 billion more than the previous government. I think that bears repeating: $150 million went, but we are now spending $3.5 billion. We are restoring services in all of those regional communities to provide the sort of security people living in those areas want. Let us face it, what is it that families and individuals in regional areas want? They want much the same as people living in any other part of the country: they want to be able to afford to hang on to their businesses; they want to be able to afford the mortgage payments on their homes; they want decent access to, and a decent standard of, education for their children; they want decent access to health care; and they want to make sure that they too are getting access to the telecommunications infrastructure that members in metropolitan areas take for granted.You have already heard the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) talk about the provision of $250 million for telecommunications infrastructure. Just recently, $610,000 of that money went into a small area of my electorate. That means that people living in the regional areas of my electorate are not going to be left behind. They are not going to be ignored the way they were by the previous government. You have heard mention of the millions of dollars that have been put into environmental works. A lot of small projects have also been funded, like the Lake Nagambie project in my electorate.In this very brief debate today, one of the things that I want to touch on that I believe has caused the greatest amount of insecurity in regional areas is the misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about how small rural communities can tap into trade reform. The term `trade liberalisation' gets bandied about, and it gets a negative response from people. I am going to lay the blame for that level of ignorance fairly and squarely at the door of the previous government, which must bear a large responsibility for the lack of knowledge and the lack of information given to both producers and members of the general public.It may surprise you to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at the grassroots level of all regional communities there is very little understanding, for example, that 70 per cent of all agricultural products of this nation are exported. Many people do not understand that we must take part in an international marketplace, even though our primary producers have been doing a fantastic job. Last year they increased their production by 7.4 per cent, which rated just in excess of $21 billion. But we have only one per cent of the world's agricultural trade. All of this stems from the fact that the previous government did an extremely poor job of informing people of exactly what the benefits are of trade to regional areas. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The discussion is now concluded.Questions Without Notice514751475147Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I seek indulgence to add to an answer that I gave in the parliament today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The member for Canberra asked me a question today which was based today upon a discussion that I had with the Australian Hotels Association. The basis of the question was that I had said to the Aus tralian Hotels Association in a private meeting that the government would be willing after the next election to consider altering the no disadvantage test which is contained in our policy. I indicated in my answer that that was not our intention, that our policy would not be altered in that regard. I have since been given a media release put out by Richard Mulcahy of the Australian Hotels Association in which he says, inter alia:The Association issued a strong rebuke to the Shadow Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Bob McMullan, who has claimed that the AHA had asked the Prime Minister to scrap the no disadvantage test.The news release concludes:Mr Mulcahy said that the Prime Minister was clear in his view that changes to the no disadvantage plan would not be part of the government industrial relations program.Mr McMullan owes both me and the House an apology.Committees5148514851485148Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 29 June 1998. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper fo the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 29 June 1998Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 29 June 1998. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 MIGRATION—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on criminal deportation.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 8 minutes. Speech time limits— Each Member—4 minutes.2 FAMILY AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on competitive tendering of welfare service delivery.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 8 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—4 minutes.3 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on Australia's trade relationship with India.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 8 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—4 minutes.4 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on National Competition Council's annual report for 1996-97.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 8 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—4 minutes.5 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE —JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on regional human rights dialogue.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within the time remaining for committee and delegation reports.Speech time limits—Each Member—4 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mrs 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.2Mr 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 efficient 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. (Notice given 22 June 1998. )Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Andren to move:That the House of Representatives:(1) welcomes the statement on 1 June 1998 by Indonesian Justice Minister Mulyadi that the Indonesian Government will consider an investigation into the circumstances of the deaths of 6 Australian based journalists in East Timor in 1975;(2) welcomes news of the possible release of up to 12 East Timorese political prisoners by the Government of Indonesia;(3) notes that the UK Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr Derek Fatchett, acting as Prime Minister Tony Blair's special emissary, recently met with jailed East Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao and called for his release; and(4) requests that the Government of Indonesia give serious consideration to the release of Xanana Gusmao, noting that this would be a vital confidence building measure that could be an important step leading to a peaceful resolution of the East Timor conflict.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Orders of the day1PALLIATIVE CARE: Resumption of debate (from 23 March 1998) on the motion of Mr E. H. Cameron—That the House:(1) acknowledges the contribution of palliative care to the proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(2) recognises the work of health professionals and volunteers in the field of palliative care and commends those workers for their commitment to patients, the compassion with which they undertake their work and the commitment they have to palliative care as a proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(3) acknowledges the benefits to patients, families and health care providers of palliative care;(4) further recognises the benefits to both patients and families of palliative care provided to patients in their home rather than at medical institutions;(5) urges the Government to continue the provision of funds to palliative care with a view to increasing funding to palliative care provided at home in particular; and(6) implores the Government to investigate the merit of encouraging the provision of palliative care at the patient's home, and the funding for this, in view of the benefits for both the patient and their family as well as the Government.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Bills5149r49316:17:005149Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I seek leave to move a motion that so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent me moving forthwith that the order of the day for the second reading of the Sydney Airports Bill 1998 be called on forthwith.Leave not granted.51495149Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Lowe moving forthwith that the order of the day for the second reading of the Sydney Airports Bill 1998 be called on forthwith.Mr Deputy Speaker— Motion (by Mr Vaile ) put: That the member be not further heard.16:22:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)78Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kemp, D. A. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.50Adams, D. G. H. Andren, P. J.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Bradford, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, A. C. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.Downer, A. J. G. Albanese, A.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?16:26:005150Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—Yes, the motion is seconded.Motion (by Mr Vaile) put:That the member be not further heard.16:27:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)78Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kemp, D. A. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.51Adams, D. G. H. Andren, P. J.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Bradford, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, A. C.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.Downer, A. J. G. Albanese, A.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Vaile) put:That the question be now put. 16:30:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)79Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kemp, D. A.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.51Adams, D. G. H. Andren, P. J.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Bradford, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, A. C.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.Downer, A. J. G. Albanese, A.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Zammit's ) be agreed to.16:33:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)51Adams, D. G. H. Andren, P. J.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Bradford, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, A. C.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.79Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kemp, D. A.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Albanese, A. Downer, A. J. G.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Committees51525152515216:38:005152Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the second report of the committee for 1998 relating to new facilities for the National Museum of Australian and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Ordered that the report be printed.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—by leave—Mr Deputy Speaker, the report which I have tabled today concerns the proposed construction of new facilities for the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. The indicative cost of the capital works is $133 million. The ACT government has also committed $3 million for infrastructure and is proposing to establish the ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre on the site.The committee has recommended that the project should proceed. This recommendation is contingent on a number of conditions which I will address shortly. Let me begin by saying that this report follows a lengthy and protracted inquiry by the committee. It was lengthy because of a number of complexities which surfaced. These are addressed at length in the report, but they encompass changes to the award winning design, the cost of the proposed work and the project delivery mechanism to be used.I might add that all members of the committee from all political parties had considerable concerns about the presentation of the facts associated with this proposed development, which, as I have already reminded the House, is for a very large amount of money—some $133 million. I congratulate all the members for pursuing the issues in the way that they did in the interests of making sure the department in particular was aware of its responsibility in this matter. On the other hand, I would say in some defence that it is a very large project with a very short timetable. It is to be completed in time to recognise the centenary of Federation.The report begins by providing the history of the development of the concept of the national museum. This goes back almost 30 years and involves an almost endless series of studies and reports. The proposal examined by the committee was initiated by an international architectural competition which was promoted as such overseas. Unfortunately, as the committee discovered, it did not qualify for this title. The report spells out the reasons and how the competition was conducted.The basis for the design of any building is the architectural brief. A brief was prepared for the five competition finalists to give them some idea of what was required. Unfortunately, again, the committee found that the brief was completed with considerable haste and was not properly costed until after the design competition closed. These factors resulted in the inclusion in the brief of what can best be described as `ambit claims for space'.The committee found that none of the five final designs from which the winning design was selected met the cost cap, nor did the costing of the brief undertaken by the Commonwealth's own cost consultants. This resulted in what were described to the committee as further refinements and a tightening up of space, requiring `further testing and refinement of the original concept'.The committee believes the final design is a significant departure from what the public was advised the museum would look like. The original concept and the revised design are illustrated in the report and honourable members can make their own comparisons. Further refinements to the winning design have resulted in a building which appears to depart from the original design concept. These changes appear to the committee to have been driven in the main by the need for the winning design to meet the budget rather than simply as improvements to functionality.As this is a project of national significance funded by taxpayers, major departures from the published design are a cause of concern to the committee. Whilst the design of the proposed building to house the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies largely remained intact, the layout was transposed to offer improved views of the lake. This transposition was intended, however, to save two heritage trees on Acton Peninsula.A feature of the design was the provision of a wetlands area. This was intended to demonstrate a commitment to ecologically sustainable development principles. Gabions, or small man-made islands, would form part of the wetlands. The committee has recommended that the need for the inclusion of gabions in the wetlands should be reviewed. Submerged wave barriers associated with those gabions should not be provided due to their deleterious effect and, in fact, danger to navigation.The proposed works include the construction of an ACT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre in conjunction with the museum and the institute project. This will be funded by the ACT government. The committee has recommended that, on completion of the National Museum of Australia, consideration should be given for the facilities at Yarramundi Reach to be vacated for use by the ACT Cultural Centre. This will provide scope for future expansion of the museum on Acton Peninsula.It is proposed to employ a form of delivery process known as project alliancing as the preferred method of delivery for this construction project. It is the first time that such a process has been used on an Australian construction project. It is the first time on a Commonwealth project and—need I say—the first time on a project examined by the committee.Project alliancing is a process whereby a group of builders and subcontractors get together with the designers as a team. The idea is that they progress the activity together. They do not have the normal power of litigation after the project is completed if there are changes to the project. In fact, they forgo the right to litigation. Problems have to be solved internally.The alliancing concept was described to the committee at the end of the third day of public hearings as `complex'. This occurred after the committee had spent a considerable amount of time questioning departmental officials about how it would work in relation to cost and profit, minimising the risk to the Commonwealth, the anti-litigation provision, checks and balances, negotiation of variations, the protection of subcontractors, and quality control.Although the committee gave approval to the Department of Communications and the Arts to call for expressions of interest for alliances—which they have done—and to undertake the work, the committee remained concerned about the suitability of the alliance concept. The committee concluded that although a project alliance has commenced for the Sydney Water project its outcome has yet to be proven in delivering a quality product in the public sector. Moreover, this delivery system is untested in the construction industry in Australia—having previously been used in major development resource projects.Notwithstanding that the committee has given approval for the Department of Communications and the Arts to advertise for expressions of interest from possible alliance participants, considerable doubt remains about how the interests of the Commonwealth will be protected in an alliance arrangement. Issues relating to quality control and cost imposts associated with delays due to mismatched delivery of works between the construction partner and the service provider remain to be answered to the committee's satisfaction.In terms of cost, the submission to the committee from the Department of Communications and the Arts advised that the total establishment costs for the museum and the institute, including capital works, were $152.374 million. This is somewhat at variance with the cost of the project when referred to the committee, which was $133 million.At the public hearing on 8 December 1997, DOCA amended the establishment costs for the museum and institute to $151.9 million. The report details the committee's dissatisfaction with the lack of consistency in the budget proposed to be expended on the proposal. As already stated, the work as referred was for $133 million. Since the amount to be expended was subsequently stated to be $151.9 million, the committee is unable to understand why the total amount was not the same as the amount originally referred. Furthermore, the committee wishes to place on record its concern about the proposed increase in cost on the basis that the committee's consideration is limited to the expenditure of $133 million, as originally referred.Having said that, the report recommends the construction of the works in this reference at a cost of $133 million at October 1997 prices, subject to the provision to the committee of six-monthly reports on the progress of the project until completed. The reports should address: progress of works and services elements identified in the construction and fit-out program; any variation to the timetable for the completion of the project; any further design changes—their nature, justification and cost; expenditure and audit reports; confirmation that subcontractors have been paid on time for work undertaken—and I am pleased that the committee took some time on this and on a couple of other projects it has investigated in recent times to raise the issue of the mechanisms for protecting subcontractors; if applicable, details of disputes between any parties on the site, notwithstanding the fact that they are to be resolved internally; if applicable, details of delays to the project due to the mismatch of timetables between the construction alliance partner and the service provider; specified standards of finish and the standard of finish provided; and details of attempts, successful or otherwise, to obtain endowments and bequests for the museum.Finally, if it is considered necessary to proceed with lump sum tendering, the aim of completing the project by January 2001 should be reviewed for the reasons stated by the Department of Communications and the Arts in the paper discussed in the report which addresses the disadvantages of proceeding with this delivery method. I commend the report to the House and welcome any comments from the deputy chairman of the committee.16:51:005155Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—by leave—I rise to support the comments made by the chairman of the committee. It is true to say, as is outlined, that the committee did have some concerns about some of the evidence provided. It really seemed to us that we had been there for a couple of days before we started to get to the nub of the matter we were inquiring into. What people sometimes overlook is that we are a committee charged by this parliament to protect the taxpayer dollar. In this case, I think that the committee, as it always does, exercised the charge that this parliament has given it.We were concerned about some aspects of the costing because it seemed to us that there was a variation between what had been proposed originally and the figures that came before the committee. The chairman has already said that it was a lengthy inquiry; and indeed it was. In fact, I think the whole committee was quite frustrated because we felt that we did not really get to the nub of it until day 2, or something like that. Many of us had travelled some distance to get to Canberra, at some expense to the taxpayer, and a day or two were wasted in that regard. However, the committee worked well. It was a complex hearing. We had to familiarise ourselves with many aspects, but the complexity was not helped by some of the evidence given by the department, as was outlined by the chairman.This building will be an important addition to Canberra, but it is also a building of national significance, so it is an important building for the whole of Australia. Personally, I would have preferred the building of the National Museum to go to the original site at Yarramundi Reach, but a case was made and it was decided that it would go to Acton Peninsula. I agreed with that, but I think that with a little bit more imagination we could have had something at Yarramundi Reach.I do not want to reopen that argument, which has been well canvassed within Canberra. With the proposition that came to us, we were not asked to decide on the site. This is a point that some people may have overlooked. We were not invited to decide on the best location for the museum. It was accepted that it was going to go on Acton Peninsula. We were charged to look at the building, not to consider the merits of Yarramundi Reach or Acton Peninsula.The final building will be different from the plan that was released in this building. I remember being here when the five final entries were displayed and the winning entry was pointed out. The building that will be built on Acton Peninsula is somewhat different from the building that won that so-called competition. I think all the members of the committee had some concerns about project alliancing. It took some time for people to explain to us exactly what this new concept meant. We are not experts in this field; we can only make decisions on the evidence that is presented to the committee and with the best will in the world. We have decided to take a punt on project alliancing. It has not been tried before with a building like this, and only time will tell whether or not we have made the correct decision. As always, the committee accepted the responsibility it has in regard to this project. We were all conscious that we were deliberating on a building of national significance; a building of significance not only to Canberra but to all of Australia. I commend the report to the House.Bills5156r4655156Consideration resumed from 2 June.Senate's amendment—(1) Clause 56, page 32 (line 7), omit "powers", substitute "functions".16:56:005156Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The Senate amendment to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 is minor in nature and amends clause 56 which contains the word `powers' by replacing it with the more correct reference of `functions'. The proposed amendment has no financial impact and is supported by the government.It is appropriate that I take this opportunity to remind the House of the key role that APRA will play under the regulatory regime. APRA will be the prudential regulator of banks and other deposit-taking institutions, life and general insurance companies, superannuation funds, and retirement income accounts. APRA will have comprehensive powers, including for licensing and regulation of the institutions authorised to provide these financial services.In the case of superannuation and retirement savings accounts, APRA will also be responsible for regulation designed to achieve retirement income objectives. This reflects the close relationship between regulation for that purpose and prudential regulation in these sectors. While APRA will initially take regulatory responsibility for all superannuation funds, it is anticipated that this responsibility in respect of most excluded superannuation funds will later pass to the Australian Taxation Office.Provision is made for APRA to be accountable through an independent board and to operate under a charter that ensures that the safety objectives of prudential regulation are balanced with efficiency, competition, contestability and competitive neutrality considerations. The APRA Bill sets out the framework for APRA's operation. This bill establishes the powers and functions of APRA, while other legislation in this package of bills will provide for the laws and regulations to be administered by APRA in relation to each sector.APRA will be an independent regulator but, like the Reserve Bank, will be subject to an overriding policy determination power of the Treasurer in the very rare event of unreconciled disagreement with the government of the day. As a Commonwealth authority, it will be accountable to the government and the parliament as provided for under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. In addition, the bill provides for additional reporting requirements in APRA's annual report, including a report on any investigations on prudential matters under section 61 of the Banking Act 1959.Any reports presented to parliament by APRA may, of course, be referred by parliament to a committee, such as the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, for detailed examination. APRA will also be expected to appear before the parliamentary committees on request. APRA will be governed by a nine-member board, whose terms and conditions of appointment will be subject to determination by the Remuneration Tribunal. To ensure that there is a close relationship between APRA, the Reserve Bank and ASIC, two of APRA's board members will come from the Reserve Bank and one from ASIC.The bill also provides for the powers of the board to set terms and conditions of APRA staff. It is envisaged that, in the first instance, the bulk of APRA's staff will come from the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, ISC, and the Reserve Bank supervision area, together with the staff of state based regulatory agencies when they join the regulatory scheme. I take this opportunity to reiterate that the interests of staff transferring from the RBA and the ISC are being fully protected.The government envisages that APRA will become fully operational at the Commonwealth level on 1 July 1998. In this context, this bill provides the changeover responsibilities for a prudential supervision of the financial sector at the Commonwealth level. Transfers of staff and responsibilities for state based institutions may require separate legislation at a later date once final agreement has been reached with the states and territories.The Treasurer (Mr Costello) has announced that the headquarters of APRA will be based in Sydney to ensure that a close relationship is maintained with the Reserve Bank, which will continue to have responsibility for the overall stability of the financial system. This will facilitate close communication and operational cooperation between these two bodies. He did, however, emphasise that the government expects a presence to be retained by APRA in the major state capitals and, at least for some considerable time, in Canberra, which is the current base of the ISC.In summary, APRA represents the centrepiece of the new regulatory structure. It is a specialised regulatory agency focused on clear regulatory purposes. As the single prudential regulator, APRA will be able to provide flexible, efficient and coordinated and consistent regulation across the financial sector, particularly for financial service conglomerates, which now make up the major part of the financial system. It will be in a position to achieve regulatory excellence, provide broader and more enriching career opportunities for its staff and develop close and com prehensive links with the whole financial system. I commend the amendment to the House.17:01:005157Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I join with the Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) in making a few observations about the amendment, or at least about the role which APRA is intended to play. The existing regulation of the Australian financial system is quite complex but it is worth perhaps setting out briefly. The Reserve Bank is responsible for the supervision of the banks. The Australian Financial Institutions Commission is responsible for the regulation of building societies, credit unions and special service providers. The Insurance and Superannuation Commission has responsibility for the supervision of life companies, general insurers and the superannuation funds. The Australian Securities Commission has responsibility for the supervision of unit trusts, merchant banks, finance companies and pastoral finance companies. Finally, the state authorities are responsible for the supervision of friendly societies, trustee companies, public trustees, cooperative housing societies and state government owned insurance offices.It is quite a complex regulatory system. It is intended that this be changed in a way that will involve APRA taking over responsibility for the supervision of six separate types of institutions: the trustees of superannuation funds; the retirement savings account providers; the life companies; the insurance companies; authorised deposit taking institutions, which is obviously banks; and authorised non-operating holding companies. It is the opposition's view that it is a change worth making. We have been supportive of this legislation and are supportive of the amendment, which is a minor amendment substituting the word `functions' for `powers'. I do not think in what might turn out to be the dying days of this parliament we will be served by a long discussion of the changes that that might involve.While the parliament is playing its part in terms of the supervision of banks and deposit taking institutions and is endeavouring to provide a regulatory framework that will enable them to perform in an optimal way, I do not think we as a community are getting value from the banks in terms of their performance. There has been increasing community concern about branch closures, staff sackings and redundancies and increased fees and charges. If you look at performance, you find a parliament doing its job in terms of the regulatory regime but banks that are not providing a level of service which the community feels it is entitled to and is indeed entitled to. Unless the banks are prepared to look more seriously at their social obligations than they have so far, we will come to a time when the parliament has to revisit some of these issues. Having said that, the opposition supports the amendment.17:04:005158Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I rise to associate myself once again with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 as amended ever so slightly. It is interesting that the Senate was able to find one word which it wanted to strike out and replace. But this is democracy in action. Constituents in my electorate would be delighted by the prowess of those in the other place in finding that the word `powers' should be substituted with the word `functions'.Nevertheless, the bill as it stood and now stands, as supported by both the opposition and the government, really highlights the fact that we have in place in this country a national government prepared to look at some of the practical and futuristic reforms which need to be undertaken. We have the wonderful situation where we are going to put more pressure on some of the key institutions in our community that are not responding as well as we would like to consumers' aspirations. The Wallis report, the Treasurer (Mr Costello), who I note is in the chamber right now, and the executive have been determined to put into the hands of everyday bank consumers, superannuation fund consumers and insurance consumers in this country competition which will bring about some real responsiveness to their needs and concerns.The legislation is practical and straightforward. It provides some very landmark reforms to Australia's financial institutions sector. It involves a large package of bills which have been before this House once before. The legislation nevertheless recognises the fact that Australian companies are able to participate openly on the world stage. They can contribute something to world's best practice and participate in the world without fear of being intimidated and without any form of economic or cultural cringe being imposed upon the nation. Our financial institutions can proudly stand on the world stage as a player in international affairs.For the everyday person, this sort of talk may not seem like bells and whistles. However, when any of my constituents go into a bank and find that they are disappointed by the level of service or they find that a fee or charge has suddenly been imposed or when they go into, for that matter, a private health insurance provider and find that their cheques are now no longer good enough to get a discount, they should bear in mind that greater competition will introduce companies into the equation that may be able to provide them with the sort of service they want. Consumers have the right to choose between various providers. Obviously people facing these sorts of major decisions in their lives are often reluctant to move from one particular institution to another.While government is playing its role in making the reforms in a legislative sense and while the government is playing its role in providing financial incentives to people to participate in private health insurance, to take out superannuation and to save money for their future, I think it is also important for government to provide a clear signal to those institutions which govern those particular areas of our community that we expect them to respond to consumers' needs and demands. Competition is always the best mechanism to bring in those sorts of responses.The member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) quite rightly said that if we do not see the responsiveness we want and need from our major financial institutions in their various forms we could well be back in the parliament to look at other ways, means and measures. Until that day, I think what we have before us, as amended, is an excellent bill. I commend the Treasurer on his personal efforts in making sure that these matters are driven, and driven well. They will set in place yet another part of the rock solid foundation the Howard government has established so people can realise their personal ambitions and individuals can go out and achieve. For those sorts of reasons, I commend the bill to the House.17:08:005159Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I hope that the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) has had the opportunity since he last spoke in this place on this legislation, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 , to review some of the more recent history on the matter, because at the time that he last spoke he was a little less than charitable in terms of the role that former governments had played in financial deregulation. I suggest that even the Treasurer (Mr Costello) would concede that the proposals that are currently before this place are certainly worth while and welcome. They build on a lot of that financial deregulation which has occurred in this country and, in fact, did occur under Labor.My comments on the particular amendment that we are dealing with today go specifically to a point that was raised about making Australia and Australian financial institutions able to compete more effectively on the world stage. I think this is what we are really trying to achieve in any amendments that we bring into this place which certainly oversight the prudential supervisory arrangements that apply to financial institutions in Australia. My views on this have been pretty well canvassed.Importantly, while we are doing that, we should also provide an opportunity for some of those banks that are in Australia to take their rightful place as major players with the big boys in the rest of the world. I know that this is one of the unfinished issues that the Treasurer is going to deal with at some stage. Perhaps he will not necessarily be the person who will deal with it; it may well be dealt with by a Labor Treasurer. The unfinished business relates to dealing with the six pillars policy and whether that is going to continue.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Six?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Six down to four now. A number of people, particularly those in the Melbourne banking establishments, have been talking about the way in which there is a need for further rationalisation to give an Australian bank at least a mega presence in the world as a financial institution. That is an issue which will be returned to by the next government. I know that, as part of that next government, we will be more than happy to do so.It is important that we reflect on the fact that this legislation is about giving surety and security to people in the financial industry. It is also about giving security and surety to those people who have placed their faith in the financial institutions that exist in Australia. There is no doubt that the Wallis report was a timely reminder to us all that governments have to be ever vigilant when looking at the financial structure of the Australian economy, that times do move on, that methodologies that are applied in banking systems change and that people have to be prepared to move with those changes.Some of those changes may be painful. People generally do not like change, Mr Deputy Speaker Reid, as I am sure you well appreciate in your own electorate. People do not like change; people see changes when existing regional banks, for example, are swallowed up and turned into larger banks or when building societies take out banking licences and decide to compete in that regional market, and so on. Those changes are an inevitable consequence of the competition that the honourable member for Moreton was referring to a little earlier, and about which the Treasurer was nodding in agreement. They have a real role to play in the Australian economy. It is a mixed economy. It is an economy in which both government and private enterprise play a very important role, no more so than the Australian banking industry and the Australian finance sector.Government has to be there through its regulatory regime which this bill seeks to fully explain and put in place, so that those artificial arrangements which previously existed between banks, insurance products and all the rest of it can now be clearly dealt with, and the former arrangement which grew out of an inquiry which I was involved in has now evolved into a further stage. All of these matters are important. At the end of the day, it is this parliament which oversees the way in which the financial system in this country ultimately works for the betterment of each and every one of us in that economy.The strength of Australia lies very much in the way in which the financial services sector deals with the everyday flow of money into and out of the economy. It is important that it is done in a safe environment and that people have confidence in it. I think what the Treasurer has brought forward as a result of the Wallis inquiry is a very useful extension of the work that has already been undertaken.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5160s161Consideration resumed from 3 June.516017:14:005160Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill contains further amendments implementing the government's financial system reform package. Taken together, the bills in this package put in place a new regulatory structure to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the financial system while preserving its integrity, security and fairness.The legislation implements the first stage of the government's response to the recommendations of the 1997 financial system inquiry, FSI, chaired by Mr Stan Wallis. Negotiations are proceeding with the states on the implementation of the second stage of the reforms which will move state based financial institutions into the new prudential and consumer protection framework.The rationale for the reforms and the detail of the measures being put in place were outlined in the second reading speeches that were made when I introduced the initial package of bills into the House of Representatives last sittings. These bills, among other things, establish the two new financial system regulators—the Australian Prudential Regu lation Authority, or APRA, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC. APRA and ASIC are expected to commence operation on 1 July 1998. The amendments included in this bill ensure that other Commonwealth legislation and the Corporations Law is made consistent with the new regulatory arrangements.A number of the amendments in schedules 1 and 3 to this bill are consequential to the amendments to the Banking Act 1959 contained in the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 . Generally, these consequential amendments change references to the words `bank', `banker' and `banking' in other Commonwealth legislation and in the Corporations Law to equivalent references to `authorised deposit-taking institutions'. Similarly, this bill also includes amendments as a consequence of the repeal of the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Act 1987.References to the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner in Commonwealth legislation and in the Corporations Law are to be amended to refer to either APRA or ASIC, or both, depending upon which organisation will take on regulatory responsibility. A number of the consequential amendments also give effect to the proposed renaming of some of the financial sector levy acts—in particular those applying to excluded superannuation funds—as amended by the financial sector reform package.Recommendation 3 of the FSI was to the effect that ASIC should have sole responsibility for administering consumer protection regulation within its jurisdiction over the financial sector. For this purpose, consumer protection provisions comparable to those in the Trade Practices Act 1974 were recommended to be included in the legislation that ASIC administers. Schedule 2 to the bill will confer on ASIC sole responsibility for consumer protection in relation to financial services.As a result of amendments included in the first package of bills introduced on 26 March 1998, ASIC will administer the specific market integrity and consumer protection functions under the various pieces of legisla tion listed in proposed section 12A of the ASIC Act. The amendments in schedule 2 will add to these functions by transferring responsibility for consumer protection in the financial system under parts IVA and V of the Trade Practices Act from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ASIC. ASIC will therefore have the full complement of functions and powers to exercise its role in the most effective manner in the interests of consumers.The removal of regulatory overlap was one of the goals of the financial system inquiry. To facilitate this goal, ASIC will become the specialist regulator for consumer protection in the financial system. It will have a high level of expertise in all matters concerning consumer protection and market regulation while consumers and other market participants will benefit from having a dedicated regulator in the sector.To ensure that consumers of financial services are not inconvenienced by the changeover in functions from the ACCC to ASIC, the two regulators will be entering into an operating agreement. This agreement will also facilitate the smooth operation of the new arrangements in the transitional period. ASIC and the ACCC will work cooperatively to address any areas of overlap which may arise between their jurisdictions.The Australian Securities Commission has already established the Financial Complaints Referral Centre, which operates as a `one-stop shop' to direct consumers who have a complaint about a financial service to the appropriate consumer complaints forum, for example, the Australian banking industry ombudsman scheme or the Life Insurance Complaints Service. ASIC will ensure that the centre continues to operate effectively for the benefit of consumers, and that appropriate matters are referred to the ACCC.The ASC has a significant track record in implementing programs of investor education. It is expected that ASIC will build on these programs to ensure that consumers are well informed about their avenues of redress. As the regulator responsible for enforcing the consumer protection provisions in the ASIC Act, ASIC will, of course, act diligently to enforce the act and punish breaches of it where appropriate. The government has considerably enhanced ASIC's budget to enable it to perform its new functions.ASIC's activities in the area of consumer protection under the ASIC Act will be subject to the annual reporting requirements under the act. The reporting requirement will be amended by this bill to specifically require ASIC to report on its monitoring and promotion of consumer protection in relation to the Australian financial system and the provision of financial services.ASIC will also be subject to the scrutiny of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities. The duties of that committee include inquiring into and reporting to both houses of parliament on the activities of the commission which the committee considers should be brought to the attention of the parliament. The committee also has the function of examining each annual report prepared by ASIC and reporting to the parliament on matters that appear in that annual report and to which, in the committee's opinion, the parliament's attention should be drawn. If necessary, the committee is also able to report on questions which it is asked to inquire into by the House of Representatives or the Senate.The government is firmly committed to strong and vigilant consumer protection in the financial system. ASIC's enhanced role will enable it to focus on the needs of consumers of financial services and provide more efficient market integrity and consumer protection regulation throughout the financial system.The government sees the transfer of consumer protection responsibilities for the financial sector from the ACCC to ASIC as an `upgrade' in the level and quality of regulation because ASIC already has had years of experience in the consumer protection field. With its enhanced resources, ASIC will be able to effectively build on its current expertise and infrastructure.In conclusion, let me return to the beginning of this financial sector reform process. Immediately after our election in 1996, the financial system inquiry was established to consider improving regulation in this area. Our policy motivation was the fact that the financial system has entered an era of accelerated change that is likely to continue into the next century and the government's recognition that the performance of the financial system—its stability, integrity and efficiency—and the cost effectiveness of its regulation are critical to the performance of the entire economy.The financial sector has not been immune from change since the Campbell committee recommendations were adopted in the early 1980s. Against the background of technological change and globalisation in particular, the Wallis inquiry identified three main reasons for further reform. First, Australia's financial sector performance was assessed to be close to the world average rather than the world's best. Second, existing regulatory arrangements do not treat all new market structures and activities equally and do not always ensure that we get the maximum benefits from change. Third, there are a number of areas of the financial system which could be more competitive.The passage of this bill, the last in a substantial package of legislation, will see the implementation of the new prudential and consumer protection framework proposed in the Wallis inquiry. The financial sector lies at the heart of the entire economy and we all depend on, and benefit from, its success. The reforms embodied in the FSI legislation will facilitate greater choice and competition in financial services. They will encourage more rapid innovation, providing wider access and enhanced levels of service. Australia will have a world class regulatory structure that ensures the highest standards of prudence and safety and consumer protection. Regulation will be more efficient, with greater consistency and less overlap. More openly contested markets will drive down industry costs and prices. These benefits will flow to all areas, including small business, those in rural and remote areas and consumers generally.At the same time, Australia's financial system will be positioned to compete strongly in the global economy, and to continue to grow as a service export industry. The government's initiatives will ensure that Australia's financial system provides the best possible foundation for the continued development and growth of the whole Australian economy. In short, Australia will have a world class regulatory and consumer protection framework for the financial system to take us into the next century. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.17:24:005162Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The main thrust of this bill, the Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998, is to transfer the necessary powers to the Australian Securities and Insurance Commission, ASIC, for the day-to-day provision of consumer protection in the financial services industry. As the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has indicated, this represents one of the final pieces of legislation to implement recommendations from the 1997 financial system inquiry which was chaired by Mr Stan Wallis and which became widely known as the Wallis report.While we are on the subject of Mr Wallis, I cannot resist making the observation that Mr Wallis is presently acting as spokesman for the Business Coalition on Tax Reform which is screening advertisements for what it describes as `the need for tax reform'. However, that same Mr Wallis has indeed let the cat out of the bag by saying that one of the things they want to get out of this is lower business taxation. The only way to get lower business taxation is to have higher household taxation. So these are, in fact, advertisements from people who essentially want you to open your pockets so they can pick them.Throughout the Wallis debate, the Labor Party has made it abundantly clear that we did not want to see any diminution of consumer protection as a result of the changes being made. Our position is clear. We believe that the ACCC should be an economy-wide regulator, which can intervene in any market on behalf of the consumer. In particular, we see this economy-wide character as important to the avoidance of regulatory capture. All too often, the regulatory authorities which are set up ultimately become dominated by the industries they are supposed to be regulating. Consumer groups are very active when they are aggrieved, but often pass on to other concerns. In contrast, the regulated industries are there every day, getting closer and closer to the regulator. Nevertheless, there is a role for industry-specific expertise. In the financial services industry, the ACCC has been relatively less active than in other consumer areas. The hope is that the ASIC will better understand the products and methods of the financial services industry and will be better resourced to pursue consumer interests.The Labor opposition has been supportive of the general thrust of the Wallis package and we have worked constructively with the government to ensure that the Wallis package of bills is passed in time for the projected starting date of the new regulatory regime. That level of cooperation is reflected by the fact that we are, indeed, debating this bill at once.We have had disagreements over aspects of the package and this bill is no exception. Our first concern was the maintenance of the working conditions and entitlements of the employees who would be transferred from the Reserve Bank, the ASC and the ISC to form the new body ASIC. After raising the matter with the government we are now assured by the relevant unions that there will be no loss of conditions and that the transitional difficulties will be addressed by ASIC.We are concerned that there should be no confusion about the application of the Criminal Code to matters such as implied warranties, because the burden of proof is higher for criminal offences. We did not think it appropriate that the regulators had to prove intent. In this regard, we have been assured by the Treasurer and the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) that the Criminal Code will not apply. We have a major concern that there will be confusion in the mind of the consumer as there is, apparently, still considerable overlap between the ACCC, the state offices of fair trading and the new ASIC. A consumer using a plastic card at an ATM will fall under ASIC if he or she presses the `debit' account button, but will fall under the state fair trading offices if he or she presses the `credit' button. You could add any number of other similar products, which combine debit and credit features and which are sold by financial advisers or accountants in one package.The one-stop shop that is proposed, which will be a common gateway for all consumer complaints, assumes an enormous importance when dealing with these products, and the Labor opposition has been insistent that the government promote this entity to the fullest. We have also insisted that ASIC's educative and compliance roles be promoted adequately, not only because this is a new institution but also because the potential for confusion amongst consumers is considerable in the increasingly complex world of financial products.The opposition was also concerned about the delegation of the considerable powers of ASIC. For example, ASIC has the legal power to initiate proceedings, to accept 87B undertakings and to receive delegated power from the ACCC. These are not powers which should be delegated to the most junior staff of any regulator and the government has accepted that only a handful of the most senior officers in ASIC will be the recipients of such delegation. This bill also leaves unconscionable conduct with the ACCC. It seems an anomaly to leave this area of small business with the ACCC, but the government has made it clear that such is its intention. Be that as it may, we are concerned that there should be no loss of protection for small business as a consequence.In making these observations about the ACCC, I want to say—and I note that the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) is here as well—that speaking for myself I am disappointed with what we have ended up with concerning the issue of unconscionable conduct, a matter which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Reid, will be familiar with. The committee which inquired into issues of fair trading made very comprehensive recommendations in this area in its report Finding a balance, and recommendation 2.2 stated:. . . that the Minister request the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to approve the Uniform Retail Tenancy Code for underpinning in the Trade Practices Act 1974, thus providing for the courts to take into account provisions of the Uniform Retail Tenancy Code in determining whether or not business conduct in the area of retail tenancy has been `unfair' and thus unlawful.That report was known as the Reid report and that recommendation was amongst many which we in the opposition supported and looked forward to being implemented. Unfortunately, when the legislation came forward, it did not contain this provision. When we raised the issue, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) said:That was never our objective. We do not want two sets of legislative schemes, federal and state, for retail tenancy. Nothing could be worse, nothing could be more costly and more burdensome for the small business community.So what the minister did was reject out of hand a recommendation which that committee had come up with after considerable consultation and after a great deal of discussion with retail tenants and small business generally which were aware of some of the issues at stake. It has become increasingly clear that the minister's alternative—to farm it out to the states—has been less than satisfactory and we are not getting from the states anything like uniform retail legislation across the nation.Indeed, the Victorian small business minister, Louise Asher, introduced her own Retail Tenancies Reform Bill to bring in a number of provisions which she regarded as appropriate for Victoria. One does hope that legislation will be of some benefit to retail tenants in Victoria, although I note there is no provision in that legislation for a retail tenancies tribunal. I think that is a really important feature of this whole area. There should be appropriate protection for retail tenants—it is one thing to have legal rights, it is another thing to have mechanisms to implement them. The absence of a retail tenancies tribunal means that retail tenants in Victoria, and indeed in other states, will have a less than satisfactory situation. So while we are talking about this issue of unconscionable conduct and the role of the ACCC, I do want to express my concern that we have ended up with a situation for retail tenants which is less than optimal. Given the lousy treatment which they have received over the years, it does seem to me that they deserve something better than that.As with anything new, time will tell in the operation of ASIC. For our part, we will remain vigilant over the rights of the consumers in financial services, and we will be keen to see that ASIC fulfils its charter and remains flexible and active in the face of rapidly changing financial service products. I indicate that the opposition will not oppose this bill.17:33:005164Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 amends the terminology in various acts to make them consistent with the amended legislation governing financial systems. For example, it changes the term `bank' to `approved deposit taking institution', and it also changes the ISC to ASIC in various acts. The bill also gives the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the function of consumer protection in respect of financial services and takes it away from the ACCC. This bill replicates the consumer protection provisions of part IVA, part V and part VI of the Trade Practices Act in the Australian Securities Commission Act, which will be the governing act for ASIC.ASIC will be limited in its consumer protection role to conduct in respect of financial services. In the bill, there are nine subdivisions which deal variously with the definition of financial services and financial products. Subdivision C deals with unconscionable conduct for corporations and financial services for personal, domestic and household use; subdivision D deals with consumer protection; subdivision E deals with conditions and warrantees; and subdivision F deals with enforcement and remedies.It is worth noting that, after most of the earlier bills relating to the implementation of the recommendations of what has become known as the Wallis committee passed through the Senate yesterday, the Australian Financial Review today reported that Ms Lynn Ralph, the chief executive of the Investment and Financial Services Association, said:We think the new bodies will give the industry the regulatory framework that it needs to move forward into the new millennium.In the regulation of market conduct and disclosure in the financial system, the com plex nature of financial products needs to be taken into account. Market failure, such as barriers to entry, information imbalances and externalities, can arise from two sources: firstly, unfair or fraudulent conduct in the market and, secondly, inadequate disclosure of information. Financial regulation composes both market integrity regulation and consumer protection. At present, market integrity and consumer regulation have been shared between the ISC, the ASC, the ACCC and the Australian Payment Systems Council.The problems with the current system are, firstly, that there are gaps, overlaps and unevenness in the regulatory intensity, style and cost in existing Commonwealth conduct and disclosure regulation due to inconsistencies. Secondly, there is duplication between conduct and disclosure regulation and between the financial regulators—like the ASC, the ISC and so on—and the ACCC.The Wallis inquiry looked at several alternative models. They looked at a dual regulatory model, a co-regulatory model—like we have now—and a single regulatory model. A functional approach to financial regulation is better. One of the problems we have at the moment is that, if you have a public unit trust or an investment linked life policy—two investments which can be functionally fairly similar—there are different disclosure rules and different financial regulators for each of those. The regulations for security brokers and life insurance agents, who can often be offering similar products, are also different.The Wallis inquiry recognised that forces shaping the financial markets mean that regulators must be flexible. Their conclusion was that several specialised regulators would be less responsive to the changes we are likely to see in the new millennium. The previous speaker, the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), mentioned the concern sometimes stated that if you just have a specialist regulator you may develop regulatory capture. It was the conclusion of the inquiry that that concern of regulatory capture was overstated. The inquiry felt that the ACCC and ASIC need to avoid any regulatory duplication, which would lead to increased compliance costs, uncertainty and inconsistency. Recommendation 3 of the Wallis inquiry states that consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act should be included in the legislation for what was then called the CFSC but is now called ASIC.Regarding the Australian financial system and the inquiry, I think we recognise that a strong, stable and vibrant financial system is a primary prerequisite for a modern economy and for economic growth. It can deliver many advantages to specific users and to the economy generally. Advantages for consumers can include things like increased choice and less costly financial services and products. For the economy, there is a reduction in financial system distortions, which allows resources to be shifted to their most efficient use and enhances Australia's competitiveness.The financial system's estimated value in employment is $40 billion, with over 300,000 people working in it. It also provides Australia with much needed service exports. As I have said, the current financial system has a regulatory structure which is inconsistent in the way in which it deals with banks, credit unions and building societies. It is inefficient, and it is not conducive to competition in the financial system.The government commissioned the financial system inquiry, the Wallis report, because of the importance of the financial system to the economy and the significant and rapid changes occurring in the Australian financial system. The changes include technological innovation, globalisation, changing business strategy and consumer needs. These changes are affecting all Australians, both consumers and businesses.The Wallis report analysed the forces that are driving economic change and made recommendations on key issues in regulatory reform. Those recommendations were aimed at creating effective, responsive, competitive and flexible regulatory arrangements. Stemming from the report, the government has already introduced a number of bills which have passed the Senate. These are substantial reforms that aim to make Australia a world financial centre and the No. 2 financial centre in the Asia-Pacific.By providing a modern, efficient and effective financial system, Australia is in a good position to take advantage of the opportunities that are currently presented to us and to become a leader in the delivery of financial services. We have a stable political, economic and legal system, a highly educated work force and, thanks to the present government, good economic fundamentals such as low inflation, low interest rates and a high level of direct share ownership. These reforms will heighten the stability in Australia's financial sector, which is especially important given the current Asian currency and financial system crisis.The regulatory reforms will provide an environment that is conducive to a stronger economic performance and offers financial stability, prudence, integrity and fairness. The report stated that even a 10 per cent improvement in efficiency would translate into cost savings for the economy in excess of $4 billion per annum. By making Australia open for business and a regional financial capital, we can actually create jobs.The Wallis report also indicts the current taxation system. The report states:The taxation system at present does not appear fully conducive to attaining international competitiveness and other financial system goals.It goes on to say:For example, taxation provisions, including income tax provisions and stamp duties, inhibit structural reorganisation and corporate entities.This is another source that indicates the current tax system is not working. It is not working for families, it is not working for Australian exports and it is not working for the Australian financial system. I commend the bill to the House.17:41:005166Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—As has been indicated by my colleague the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), the opposition will not be opposing any aspect of the financial sector reform legislation which we are debating today. I will not detain the House too long, save to make one or two comments about the way in which the proposals that have come forward here will play a very real role in the Australian economy in the future. I dare say, though, that it will not be the last time we debate with a government in this place changes that will be necessary as changes occur in the financial structure of the Australian economy.If one thing is certain as we rapidly approach the next millennium, it is that, with technological changes, with the globalisation that has occurred in the way in which financial services and financial service transactions take place around the world, there will be a new approach to not only the regulatory system that applies in Australia but also the supervisory way in which we deal with the sorts of issues of security that will emerge as being of concern to many people.The reason I say that, of course, is that the honourable member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) in his comments alluded to the Asian economic crisis, the Asian currency crisis, and the implications that that has for Australia. There is no doubt that some 12 months ago, when the first hint that there were problems in our region started to emerge, it really did centre on currency; it centred on nothing else. At the time the government was saying, `There's nothing to worry about. Australia's been nicely insulated for any of the problems of our local region. We're the strongest economy in the entire region, and we can withstand anything. At the moment it is only currency and there is not much else to worry about.' As time has gone on, of course, we have seen that it is anything but just a currency crisis.The revelation last week that Japan is officially in recession was enough to send shock waves not only through our own region but also right around the world. The repercussions that occurred in the stock markets around the world and the repercussions that subsequently occurred with currencies and the valuation of the Australian dollar vis-a-vis many of our other trading partners saw some enormous repositioning of the way in which the Australian economy was viewed by others, and the way in which I think the government has started to view its own handling and the fundamentals the member for Boothby referred to.The simple fact is that when an economy like Japan goes into recession, when it has been dangerously hovering with very poor growth rates for a period of time now, that must send to its major trading partner—that is, Australia—a clear message. The message has to be that if the second largest economy in the world, second only to the United States, can have such a fundamental problem imposed on it then there are some lessons that need to be learned and some ramifications for Australia.In the case of Japan, we are talking about a financial system in that country which is basically archaic. It is in need of absolute and total reform. I have no doubt that some of the measures the Prime Minister announced yesterday—after, yet again, further hasty consultations with the President of the United States—will go some way to repairing that. But the simple fact is that an economy like Japan has effectively been isolated and insular when it comes to financial services.Allowing banks from other countries, for example, to get in to compete against Japanese banks has been a no-no. In fact, many of the those Japanese banks themselves are starting to feel the sort of disease that swept through many of the Australian banks in the late 1980s. They have been swept away by huge volumes of loans which cannot be repaid. Bad debts have accumulated because of many failed Japanese business enterprises. In years gone by that would have been unheard of.In years gone by the Japanese economy would have been viewed as strong enough to withstand any of those sorts of difficulties and to rebound and to lead by example in our region. That has not been the case. As a consequence, I think the World Bank, the IMF and other monetary authorities around the world that have been making comments about some of the other economies, like the Indonesias, the Thailands and those sorts of places, are now saying that in the case of Japan we need to give some clear thought and direction to the way in which they are going to reform their own financial system because it is going to have an enormous impact on the local region.We are concerned about this legislation, though, ensuring that adequate consumer protection is incorporated within the changes being proposed. I think there is nothing clearer as to why this is necessary when you see examples in our region and examples in other locations around the world of similar economies where banking systems were seen to be strong and consumers were bitten and hurt by poor decisions that were occasioned by the financial system of the time. The United States again proves to be an example of this.In the 1980s, when the S&Ls were around, the savings and loans operation where mum and dad banks, very small operations, could start up and offer loans to people for a song almost, they got themselves into all sorts of difficulties, yet in the United States the government had to come to their rescue because of the depositor protection system which operates there. Thank goodness that out of the Wallis inquiry this government, indeed any government, decided against pursuing that as an option for Australia.I could think of nothing worse than to have some government inspired, government funded—at the end of the day, taxpayer funded—proposition that we have deposit protection funds in place so that somebody knowingly could go into some sort of crook business deal and get left holding the can and the bank could then apply to the Commonwealth government to have that money reimbursed to give back to those people. Where would be the incentive for ordinary people to use a bit of prudence when looking for protection for their own money?MG4LEEMr Lee—They could offer a two per cent borrowing rate.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—As my friend and colleague the member for Dobell suggests, it sounds very much like the sort of two per cent borrowing rate nonsense that some people are talking about. Perhaps when all else fails they could simply print more money. I can just see the printing press in the electorate office of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) working overtime as we speak.Access to services is another important element of this debate when we are talking about the way in which financial sector reform is implemented in Australia. One of the enduring qualities of the way in which Australia has operated as a financial services centre for the Asia-Pacific region has been a recognition by those foreign banks, for example, that come and locate here that the customer base they have was such that they could very nicely niche market. In days gone by when the original 15 licences were issued for foreign banks to come here it was always going to be on the bank to establish a branch network and, as a consequence, they would compete against the existing major Australian banks, regional banks and so on.As we have seen over time, that has not happened. It has not happened for a number of reasons. The first is that the big four decided they would get fairly aggressive in the marketplace. As a consequence, with a population of only 18 million people, those foreign banks decided that it was not worth their while to establish a branch network which could compete against the existing banking structure, and fair enough. In more recent times, with the elimination of the restrictions on foreign bank licences, we have seen more banks come here and, as a consequence, they have added a dimension of competition in niche markets, particularly in business lending and so on. In terms of housing finance and other markets for small business and so on, we find that as a direct result of competitive elements amongst the existing banks in Australia there are some fairly reasonable deals on offer at the minute.One of the issues I have been addressing as I have been travelling around talking to small businesses in Australia at the minute—and it is an issue that one of the parliamentary committees on which I sit has examined in recent times—is the way in which the margin for lending for small business has started to come down. In fact, the Reserve Bank of Australia figures have indicated that that is the case. Whilst there still is a margin, because small businesses are often those most susceptible to not working out and, as a consequence, the risk factor has to be added in, that margin is starting to get a little smaller.I think that would be something all small businesses would welcome, and it is certainly a reflection of the way in which the financial system in Australia has been opened up to competition. As I said a little earlier in a contribution in respect of some other similarly related bills, that is not just as a result of the reforms coming out of Stan Wallis's committee's report in the last two years but as an ongoing result of financial sector reform that has occurred since 1983 in Australia, because since that time there has been enormous change.One of the negative issues associated with this is the question of access to services with the current drive to maintain profit levels and dividends to shareholders with the banks. At the end of the day, who can blame the banks? They really are beholden to their shareholders and they do not believe that there is any community service obligation on them when it comes to providing services to rural and remote areas. One of the ongoing issues is whether the banks should be compelled in some way or cajoled into staying in many rural and remote areas of Australia when the rest of business is shutting down.I have mentioned this issue in this place previously. A parliamentary committee of inquiry is presently examining ways alternative sources of providing banking services might be available to rural and remote Australia—things like the local pharmacy offering a limited range of banking services, perhaps even the extension of credit unions or building societies which are prepared to stay in the town when a bank perhaps closes down and perhaps having mobile outreaches where the banks get together in the same way as one-stop shops do for the provision of services and information to, say, small businesses. We could have a mobile outreach program where the banks fund somebody to travel around to these rural and remote areas to provide appropriate advice. All of that is reasonable, and all of that has to take into consideration modern technology.I said earlier today that unfortunately we all are a little resistant to change, we do not like to see change when it is occurring because we are a little frightened of it, but when it comes to the provision of banking services time moves on and home computers, people having greater access to the Internet, banking services being placed online through home computers and so on, telephone banking and holes in the wall in every regional shopping centre around Australia are providing alternatives to the way in which people have traditionally had banking services provided to them. I think this whole issue is going to be of great interest to people in the future.We saw in the Queensland election the populist views of One Nation. One of the issues raised was that people were concerned about the elimination of services in regional and rural Queensland. They are—and they are concerned about it in regional and rural Australia generally. In the Illawarra region they are concerned that Medicare offices have been shut down, they are concerned that the immigration office was shut down, they are concerned about the range of other services in parts of Australia where the Taxation Office has gone and so on; and when they see that the banks are also shutting down they complain loudly about that. I think it is an issue for government that we are going to have to address, and I know that the opposition is looking very carefully at this particular issue.One of the two final matters I quickly want to touch on is the issue of consumer protection and the fact that unconscionable provisions have been included here—unconscionable conduct, borrowing directly from fair trading—and my friend the member for Wills made some comments on that. The fact of the matter is that this definition of unconscionability is still being used. It is a much more difficult test than unfairness. My friend was talking a little earlier about its applicability to retail tenancy matters because the changes to the Trade Practices Act, which come into effect on 1 July and apply in a small business sense, are a direct lift from the consumer protection provisions in the Trade Practices Act.It is important for people to realise that unconscionability is a very difficult test to prove; unfairness, on the other hand, is not. There is no case law on unconscionability in small business. I do not know if there is any when it comes to consumer complaints. Unconscionability in some way implies that there was a very conscious decision taken by somebody to defraud or to delude or to, in some way, get an advantage over some other person in a commercial relationship. It is very hard to prove. Unfairness, on the other hand, is easier and, in my view, is something which needs to be revisited by government.The final issue is the question of taxation reform, which was mentioned by the member for Boothby. You would have to laugh when you talk about the banks, taxation reform and Wallis all in the same breath. Let's face it: Mr Wallis, as the chairman of the banking inquiry which has caused many of these amendments to come forward, was concerned about ensuring, from his perspective, a whole new approach to financial services provision in Australia. In my view, many of his recommendations were right and, as I said to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) a little earlier, I think the government will be revisiting a few of those others, particularly their four-pillar policy, which I think at some stage will be reviewed downwards.But this same Mr Wallis—the head of the Business Council of Australia and the same person who is funding the advertisements on taxation reform being run at the minute—is trying to pass the burden away from business, reducing big business costs and passing it on to ordinary consumers. Not only that but the banks themselves are out there in the car advocating these changes, and they are also advocating that the GST does not apply to banking services.MG4LEEMr Lee—As long as they're exempt.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—As long as the banks are exempt from this form of reform they are all for it.MG4LEEMr Lee—I bet the veterans aren't exempted.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—I think people have to be a touch wary when the banks think the greatest thing since sliced bread is for a GST to be imposed on everybody, provided of course they get an exemption, and when this is being driven by the man who did the inquiry into the banking system and who is also helping to fund the ads on TV which suggest that this is the best form of reform of the taxation system.This legislation is not contentious. It is certainly welcome. This legislation draws together elements of the 1997 financial system inquiry which was chaired by Stan Wallis. I have said in this place before, and I will say it again, that I thought he did a first rate job as the chairman of that committee. We cannot agree with him on his most recent statements in respect of taxation reform. But isn't that great? That is what makes democracy in this country. On the other hand, the Treasurer of Australia—and hopefully it will be the Treasurer on this side of the parliament—will be coming back to deal with a range of these issues in the not too distant future.18:00:005170Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—The Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill is, as the previous speaker, the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), said, non-controversial and is generally accepted by all across the House. In opening my comments I want to put on the record the issue of our finance system and how we as a nation take it for granted. When the banking system was deregulated during the 1980s, we became aware of some of the excesses that can come into a banking system if it gets out of control.Those situations you hear of in international financial systems which run amok and the human misery that is brought upon the populations of those countries really bring it home that if you do not have proper prudential care and proper legislative strength in your financial system you can very quickly get into serious trouble as far as your economy goes and bring misery to your people. So I remind the House that we do take our finance system for granted. With our early adventure of deregulation with high interest rates, excess borrowings and the pressure it put on many Australians, we have matured. This is part of that maturation process. We do welcome it because our country is built on the solid rock of a strong financial system.The bill further implements the government's reform agenda in the financial system. The 11 bills introduced in the parlia ment on 26 March represent the first stage of implementation. The two new regulators, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities Investment Commission, will commence on 1 July 1998 or as soon as possible thereafter. The reforms in the bill reflect the changed regulatory arrangements for financial institutions under APRA's supervision. There are a whole range of consequential matters which are obviously very detailed. My compliments go to the legislative drafting people who must spend many hours poring over the various parts of the legislation and the various consequences to make sure it stands up in the proper legislative sense.In terms of the financial implications for the government, there is no financial impact. I understand that the regulation impact on business is very low. We will ensure that the amendments to the Banking Act 1959 are mirrored and reinforced by other Commonwealth legislation so that consumers may benefit from increased choice, improved quality and lower cost products and services in the medium term.I now turn to the issue of banking in the bush which has been touched on by previous speakers. I started life as a bank clerk in a bank which has been taken over by one of the big three or four that we currently have in this country. But, nevertheless, in the short time that I worked in the banking industry, it was interesting. It was quite a pleasant industry to be in. There was service delivery and customer contact. I quite enjoyed the time I was in the bank. I headed off to another occupation, but, nevertheless, I always look back on my days in the banking industry with some fondness and pleasant memories.As a member of parliament representing one of the largest electorates in the country, services in the bush are a real issue for us. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration and its chair, the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), have a pretty big job ahead of them in looking at the alternative means of providing banking and like services in regional and remote Australia. I look forward to that report.The one thing you cannot stop is technological progress. Whatever decisions the banks make about where they see their profitability and their service to their customers, there is the ever forward march of technology, and the capacity of this technology is ever remarkable. I was somewhat discouraged by the newly deregulated banking system in the late 1980s to the point that I moved to the credit union approach to banking, which I found quite satisfactory. But, whichever system you are in, whether it is corporate or commercial banking, the credit union or CreditCare, which is another area of the finance service industry giving service to smaller communities around Australia, you cannot get away from the fact that this technology is going to continue to offer a range of services in efficiency, effectiveness, convenience, whatever, that would have been unheard of in the days when I was a bank clerk 30 years ago. That is the challenge in front of us. I am sure that the banks are not deliberately looking to be difficult or to not provide a service to people particularly in smaller communities, but the fact that we do have such a large range of options in front of us in terms of banking services is something that will ever be impacted on by the technology available.The Wallis report has been well covered. I understand that we will allow new financial institutions to establish themselves locally, including local or regional credit union-style institutions, and I welcome that. I think the credit unions have a role to play, particularly in regional Australia. When the report was brought down last year, I thought it was quite well accepted in the community. To my knowledge, the credit union movement regarded the report quite well.I think I have covered pretty well all the provisions and implications of the bill. Too often we use the word `competition' and it becomes just jargon. The Wallis inquiry did note that if only a 10 per cent improvement were achieved in the financial sector, the result would be savings in excess of $4 billion a year. Those are the dimensions of an efficient and effective financial sector in Australia. That $4 billion represents invest ment for other employment opportunities, dividends for our retirees and infrastructure in our country.The purpose of the legislation is to keep abreast of the changes in the financial industry, and I welcome them. It can be a little scary to look at the potential for change in front of us but, as I said earlier, this onward march of technology, with the international implications, will offer many more opportunities for Australia than we could ever have thought of a decade or so ago. I think of one opportunity in Port Augusta where a new service—the electronic trading service—will offer a whole range of capacity in a financial and traded goods sense, internationally, which that community is embracing with great enthusiasm. That is another example of how this industry is so dynamic and constantly changing, to the nation's advantage. This is a non-controversial bill and I wish it well.18:10:005171Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Having been here from the moment the Treasurer (Mr Costello) made his second reading speech, it has been interesting to listen to the various terms and comments that have been used in this debate on the Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 . They are terms that people in the electorate, I think, are very frightened of. I speak of `globalisation', `technological change', `competition policy' and the acronyms `ASIC' and `ACCC'—all of those things that do not mean too much to ordinary people except that they are frightened of them. I guarantee that if you ask members of this parliament what they think `globalisation' means you will probably get 149 different answers. Some would not answer the question at all. I might be one of those who would probably refuse to answer on the grounds that I am not quite sure what it means.However, the fact of the matter is that we do have a changing society, a changing economy. When one considers the comments of the member for Grey (Mr Wakelin) about his time in the bank 30 years ago, one realises it is a very different environment now. The banks of 30 years ago had a face-to-face aspect, friendly bank tellers and easy access. They took pride in dealing with their custom ers, they had absolutely assiduous banking policies and they ensured that your money was carefully looked after and that you received an interest rate that was always modest. There was never a worry or a care about those banks running to the wall. That is testament to a banking system that was built, as I think the member for Grey said, on a solid rock.It is a very different scenario these days. I think it is fair to say that, if you asked the average person what they thought of banks today, you would get answers that were none too kind. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), who is at the table, would know only too well that banks seem to have forgotten that they are there to serve customers. Now the banks seem to focus on the fact that they are there to serve themselves first and foremost. Consequently, banking deregulation has somehow led, it is said, to a better environment, to the saving of more money and to the system becoming more competitive.But how do you say that to the pensioner who comes to see you and says, `I had an account with $500 in it. I had forgotten about this account. The book had been sitting in the cupboard for a few years. Anyway, I saw it the other day and I thought that was good and I would put $10 in the account'? What happened when he took the book into the bank? The bank said, `Thanks very much. We'll give you about $3 worth of interest and we'll take $10 for your not depositing money in the account for three years.' The penalty of $10 was for not depositing money in the bank for three years. As I reflected on that story I said, `I'm sure that legally the bank cannot do that to you, because it would have to get you to agree to the changes that it was making in its policies before it could impose the levy.' That is a matter that, for the sake of principle—even for only $10—I will be pursuing further.It is that sort of environment that is getting people very upset. If that is globalisation and technological change people do not want a bar of it. People want to see that a bank that is using their money—even that little $500 was being used for three or four years—gives some reward for doing so. Whoever heard of the notion of being charged for having money in the bank and not withdrawing it or making a deposit for three years?So when we hear the member for Grey—and I respect him greatly—comment that we cannot stop technological progress, we have to ask whether that is an oxymoron. Is this progress? Progress is getting into a position where you want to be. Sometimes we should reflect on the terminology of these things. When Mr Wallis says that a bare 10 per cent improvement will lead to a saving of $4 billion, by whom will the saving be made? Will it mean that that $10 will not be abstracted from the account of the pensioner any more if we make that saving? I guarantee it will not.The member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) commented about the closing of banks `even in Illawarra'. I will refer to one that closed in an area that I have inherited with the change in boundaries—in a little town called Dayboro in the more rural part of the new electorate of Dickson. In the outer parts of Dayboro, there are pineapple growers, some dairy farmers, banana growers, other small crop growers, and small business people who serve those industries still left there—all of whom really appreciated having that bank and the fact that it was there.What has happened? When we ask why these banks have closed down—as we should do—we should expect an answer. Is it because we have to accept that banks are also going through this economic rationalism notion? And what does that mean? Does that mean that beforehand—before the 1980s, before the liberalisation, the deregulation, et cetera—these banks really did not make much money? In fact, they ran at a loss but they were providing a service. But there was always an upside to providing that service, because the rest of the family, who might move to the city or might do something else, would be using that bank, based on the reputation it had gained by being in that town servicing—and doing the right thing by—the people who have lived there.Banks, in a sense, have become myopic about these things, in my view. When you ask yourself where we are going as an Australian community, with the little bank closing down in the little country town, you then have to ask—and the member for Cunningham reflected on this—how we can get them to stay there. It is an interesting and important question to be asked: how can we get them to stay there? Can we impose on their goodwill, or can we persuade them? Can we argue that it is in their best interest to stay there? In a commercial sense it is. It is really penny-pinching to close down a one-person bank in Dayboro or in the Illawarra or somewhere else—banks that are serving a little discrete community but doing such an important job for the overall notion of decentralisation that is so dramatically needing to be held together. That is not desiring something we should not have; that is desiring something we have to have to be an effective and viable society.I noted also some comments by the member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) about Mr Wallis's comments on the tax system. The tax system certainly does need reform. There are very few who disagree with that notion. But we also need to look at the other end—as to why it needs reform. The answer cannot be `It needs reform because it needs reform.' We always have to look at the expenditure side of that issue. Did the tax system evolve because expenditure just kept blowing out and out? The Income Tax Assessment Act also expanded exponentially from a stage where, when I did tax law at university, you could carry it around quite simply in your travel bag but now you need a trolley to carry it around.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Must have been a long time ago.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Not all that long ago, actually; it was 1980, in fact. In any event, we do need to ask those questions. We hear about the situation in Asia and particularly in Japan. The recession was mentioned by the member for Cunningham, although some have described it as a depression. The US has now temporarily come in to stem the tide, as it were. But these matters are all ultimately of great concern to people in government who have to watch these things. Ultimately, there is a trickle-down effect. Is that trickle-down effect in some way linked to the fact that we are linked so strongly to the global economy? Is that another area that we need to be concerned about, that we need to ask questions about? Rather than glibly roll these terms off the tongue, do we need to ask why? `Should we not ask why?' is really the question.It is important, as the Treasurer mentioned, that the parliamentary committee is going to have power to look into ASIC. That is a very good initiative to be carried out by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, provided of course that the government pays heed to the committee's work. That is important. It is no good having a committee to just basically window-dress; the committee's report needs to be considered.Overall, some challenging and interesting matters have been raised by the various speakers. I say to all concerned that we should always consider whether we are, in fact, making progress with these changes. We are assured that we are, but is it real progress in the sense that we are benefiting the ordinary people, the average person? I thank the House for its time and commend these remarks to the House.18:22:005173Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—in reply—Firstly, I would like to note that, when drafting this legislation, an existing anomaly in the Trade Practices Act was carried into the Financial Sector Reform (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 . It is not a defect or error in the drafting of the bill but rather reflects the fact that the amendments mirror the Trade Practices Act. Subdivision E, in particular section 12ED of the amendments, will imply into contracts for the supply of financial services a warranty that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.If the consumer makes known any particular purpose for which the services are required, there is an implied warranty that the services will be reasonably fit for that purpose. It is not technically possible to breach this provision in a way that leads to criminal sanctions. The provision simply implies a contractual warranty. The same situation arises under the Trade Practices Act.The government has noted concerns that have been raised about the fact that the bill appears to attach criminal sanctions to breaches of implied warranties. This is not in fact the case, and the bill will have no effect on the rights of parties to contracts into which certain terms are implied by the bill. To make the position absolutely clear the government had intended to clarify the operation of the bill on this question by way of a chairman's amendment, but this has not been possible. The government intends to address this anomaly in the Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill which is proposed to be introduced into the House next week. In the meantime, this anomaly will not affect the technical operation of the provisions.I take this opportunity to summarise the debate to say that this is major reform of the Australian financial system. This bill puts in place a regulatory system for Australia which will be leading edge in the world. This is something that is being watched very carefully internationally and it gets new prudential regulation, particularly—(Quorum formed) I thank the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for calling a quorum so that people would come into the House to hear the conclusion of this debate. This bill brings to a conclusion substantial reform of the Australian financial system. It puts in place world-class regulation. It puts Australia at the forefront of regulation. It will cut costs and it will ensure that the Australian financial system takes us forward into the next century.I acknowledge the support that the opposition has given in relation to this. I pay tribute to the officials who have worked hard to bring this about. This is important regulation and it will ensure that the Australian financial system is governed in a prudential, fair and stable way. One of the lessons that we have learned from the Asian financial crisis is the importance of having a stable, well-regulated financial system, and this bill will ensure that Australia has such a system into the next century.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5174Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Costello) read a third time.Ministerial Statements5174517418:29:005174Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—For the information of honourable members, I present the progress report on the implementation of the health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas, which I referred to in my ministerial statement earlier today.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills5174r4185174Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:005174Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—In drawing this debate on the second reading to a close, I wish to thank honourable members who have spoken on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997. This bill, combined with our choice of funds legislation, will deliver a package of genuine superannuation reforms. Superannuation will be easier for employers to administer because they will have only one set of federal obligations to meet.Complying with many awards in the one workplace and complying with the superannuation requirement of those awards in the one workplace can build complexity and administrative costs for employers. Under the superannuation guarantee legislation that this House has passed, the Australian Taxation Office will now ensure that the administration of superannuation for all employees is done with clarity and fairness. The removal of superannuation provisions from awards will remove a layer of complex detail and relieve employers of the burden of complying with an extra set of obligations which have done nothing more than add to the complexity of superannuation administration.This will be of real benefit to employers in the federal industrial relations system. The government welcomes the extension of this benefit to employers who are required to meet state award obligations in relation to superannuation. We will continue to work with the states and actively pursue a greater harmonisation of federal and state industrial relations legislation. The removal of superannuation from state awards would be a welcome initiative. Were it done, it would remove yet another layer of administrative cost from employers.After all, we are living in a day of intense competition, with Australia and its workplaces up against Japan and its workplaces and Europe and its workplaces. In these days of competition, anything of a sensible nature that can remove layers of administration is beneficial not only to the Australian employer but ultimately to the number of employees that can be put on by Australian firms. It allows the Australian employer a sense of certainty and a cost reduction that makes them more competitive and gives them a willingness to employ more people. In that way, it advances the wellbeing of all Australians, be they employers or employees. We look forward to the day when state governments follow the example of the Victorian government and remove industrial law as a matter of competition or extra administrative cost between governments.The proposal to exclude superannuation from awards is not new. I remind honourable members that when the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Bill 1996 was originally introduced in May 1996, the allowable award matters did not include superannuation. This reflected the government's view that superannuation is most appropriately provided for through the superannuation guarantee legislation and through agreements at the workplace or enterprise level. Superannuation was added to the allowable matters in the period of negotiations that went on whilst the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Bill was being negotiated through the House of Representatives and, particularly, the Senate.Superannuation was added to the allowable matters by way of a Senate amendment moved by the government and the Australian Democrats. It was always intended by both the government and the Democrats that this would be only a temporary measure and that superannuation would be removed from the allowable matters as part of the choice of funds legislative package. That is in place. In addition to complementing the government's choice of funds legislation, this bill will also enhance the process of simplifying awards.The opposition has chosen to overlook the benefits of our proposed reforms. It has made extravagant and, I am sorry to report, misleading claims about the effects of the bill. For example, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) chose to quote an incorrect newspaper article suggesting that 50,000 employees in South Australia would lose their superannuation entitlement. It was absolute nonsense. She should have checked that information before using it in the House. There are 50,000 Commonwealth employees in total in South Australia. The article made the sweeping assumption that every Commonwealth employee would lose their superannuation and be worse off. Nothing could be further from the truth. The superannuation guarantee proposals protect Australian workers. Be they in the Australian Commonwealth Public Service or working under federal awards, workers are protected by the superannuation guarantee legislation.The untrue claim made by the member for Jagajaga was both irresponsible and unhelpful to the debate. It overlooked the extensive superannuation entitlements provided in the superannuation guarantee legislation and in workplace and enterprise agreements. But reliance on incorrect and misleading assertion has, I am afraid, typified the approach taken by the opposition on award simplification. I regret to say that the opposition has engaged in scaremongering campaigns, claiming that award simplification amounts to award stripping. The key decisions of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission about the simplification of the hospitality and metal industry awards demonstrate the truth of the matter. If members of the opposition present had followed those cases, they would be aware that their claims are without foundation.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—No-one in Australia believes you, Alan.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I do not know; with regard to the metals industry and the asbestos provisions, the honourable member should examine what the award says about the protection of workers from asbestosis. He should come into this place and tell me that he agrees the award is a better way of doing things. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the occupational health and safety provisions that we live under are far more stringent than most awards, and the honourable member knows that. He knows that that applied in the metal industries award. He should welcome this approach because it is not award stripping. It is a simplification that allows a better process for all concerned.Award simplification is not about stripping; it is about making awards less prescriptive and detailed. It removes obsolete clauses, providing more flexible working arrangements and making awards more user friendly and easier to understand. For goodness sake, in this day and age, some awards state that the employer shall provide boiling water. We are not living out in the sticks; we are living in a modern environment where people drink cappuccinos at morning teatime and lunchtime. Some awards include primitive things like that, and to say that that represents the stripping of awards is just ridiculous.The opposition have chosen also to overlook the fact that unions rely largely on the superannuation guarantee legislation rather than on awards. For all their claims about the importance of award superannuation, the reality is that unions simply have not bothered to keep their awards up to date. In 1994, the superannuation test case decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission provided that awards could include the superannuation guarantee level of contributions. But four years later, very few awards have been varied in that regard.The opportunity was given by the court, but few unions took up the opportunity to include these factors in awards. If it is a matter of such high contention or importance, you would have thought that 100 per cent of the union movement, urged on by the ACTU, would have grabbed the opportunity of including, within all of their awards, the very processes that the opposition says are so important. But that is not the case. The majority of awards have not been amended. The vast majority of awards provide for three per cent contributions, but the superannuation guarantee stands at six per cent, going up to seven per cent on 1 July. So much for being important; so much for keeping things up to date. It is a very reasonable approach on the part of the government.It is clear that unions have not supported these superannuation award provisions and rely on the superannuation guarantee to establish minimum contributions. Again, it is the superannuation guarantee, not awards, that established the minimum superannuation entitlement for the vast majority of workers in the federal jurisdiction. So, again, we have Commonwealth law applying to the federal jurisdiction being taken note of. That is the very thing that people rely upon.These workers no longer need award superannuation, as the superannuation guarantee does the work previously done by awards, and this will be all the more so with the introduction of choice of fund. That is self-evident. With choice of fund, you must rely on something that overarches the whole system of superannuation. I say to members of the opposition: can you imagine the complexity as people move from job to job and from industry to industry and maintain the right of choice in superannuation fund? Can you imagine the complexity and impossibility of tracking their accounts and effectively keeping a record of their entitlements?This government wants to make sure that there is flexibility for employees so that, as they change their position and type of industry, their superannuation follows along with them; in fact, they come to the end of their working life with a worthwhile provision. When the opposition was in government, this did not occur to them. All they wanted to do was run a system and make sure that the super funds benefited by union involvement. You thought of the structures; you did not think of the people.What this government has done consistently is to think of the people in the system and the impact of superannuation on them. As we move to choice, portability and the way in which the superannuation entitlements are retained by the individual as they move from place to place, from job to job, from industry to industry, and previously from award to award, the complexity is just compounded.This simplification process removes that complexity, removes the need for administrative costs and will remove, ultimately, the complexity that choice will offer some employers and some employees to begin with, but which will ultimately move to a system of preservation and the reserve of funds for people in their retirement.It is worth bearing in mind the origins of the superannuation guarantee. The unions had made an application to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to increase the level of award superannuation. That application was unsuccessful. In the face of the rejection of the union's application, the then government introduced the superannuation guarantee legislation. In other words, it was more than happy to override or sidestep awards at that time. But what it did not have the courage to do was to deal with the mess created by letting award superannuation continue alongside the superannuation guarantee legislation, despite all the inherent problems associated with a dual regime.The previous government was prepared to allow that to go on, with complexity, mess and a lack of understanding, settling for a process of negotiation with the ACTU under the accord system and writing that into legislation rather than dealing with the situation fully and properly. The opposition should recognise the mess that it created and support this legislation as a sensible approach to simplifying the complex layers of regulation that currently surround superannuation. You would make a major contribution, you could justifiably claim that you have contributed further to the reform of conditions for employees in Australia and, at the same time, you would be making the statement that you have simplified the processes of superannuation.As foreshadowed by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), the government will be moving amendments to preserve the existing notional earnings bases. These amendments will ensure that, once superannuation is removed from awards, employers will be able to continue to apply the notional earnings bases of employees, determined by reference to federal industrial awards. Continuity and the provision of a base for the calculation is part of this process. The continuity process is there, and so the calculations can be made without fear or risk.The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 will continue to operate in respect of an employer and employee as it would have operated if superannuation had not been removed as an allowable matter and the terms of the award had not been varied. This means that there will be no change to the current earnings bases arrangements for employers and employees. The bill, as amended, will simplify superannuation regulations for employers in the federal industrial relations system by removing an unnecessary layer of regulation, and this is what the whole process of award simplification and flexibility is about.This is what we said we would do prior to the election. This is just one small part of it—a part agreed to by the Democrats, a part now being dealt with by the House and a part that has inherent in it a simplification that will relieve employers of oppressive record keeping and administration, and the link with choice gives employees a much better chance to achieve their goals. The bill is about simplifying administrative arrangements and providing for an efficient and effective regulation of superannuation through a single set of legislative requirements. I want to thank those members who have participated in the debate, and I commend the bill to the House.Question put:That the bill be now read a second time. 20:21:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. N.B. Reid)71Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.46Adams, D. G. H. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hanson, P. L. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.Bishop, B. K. Evans, G. J.Downer, A. J. G. Albanese, A.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5178Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.NaN:00:005178Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:2 Commencement (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. (2) If the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent is earlier than, or the same as, the day on which the Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 3) 1998 receives the Royal Assent, item 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act commences on the date of commencement of Schedule 5 to that Act, immediately after the commencement of that Schedule.(2) Page 3 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 2—Amendment of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 19921 After section 12 Insert:12A Interpretation: contributions to superannuation fund or RSA notionally made in accordance with industrial award (1) The operation that Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Act 1997 would, apart from this section, have in relation to this Act is to be disregarded. (2) The following provisions of this section explain how subsection (1) is to apply. (3) Where: (a) an employer is contributing to a superannuation fund or an RSA for the benefit of an employee in relation to a contribution period; and (b) the employer would be so contributing in accordance with an industrial award if: (i) Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Act 1997 had not been enacted; and (ii) no amendments had been made after the commencement of this section to the industrial award in respect of the contributions to be made by employers to superannuation funds or RSAs for the benefit of their employees; this Act has effect as if: (c) the employer were contributing to the fund or RSA for the benefit of the employee in relation to the period in accordance with the industrial award; and (d) the provisions of the industrial award relating to the calculation of the contributions were the same as those that applied immediately before the commencement of this section. (4) Where an employer would be required by an industrial award to contribute in a contribution period for the benefit of an employee to a superannuation fund or an RSA if: (a) Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Act 1997 had not been enacted; and (b) no amendments had been made after the commencement of this section to the industrial award in respect of the contributions to be made by employers to superannuation funds or RSAs for the benefit of their employees; this Act has effect as if: (c) the employer were required by the industrial award to contribute in the period for the benefit of the employee to the fund or RSA; and (d) the requirements of the industrial award relating to the calculation of the contributions were the same as those that applied immediately before the commencement of this section. (5) Where an industrial award applying throughout a contribution period would have specified that an amount had to be contributed by employers to a superannuation fund or an RSA for the benefit of the employers' employees in a class and would otherwise have complied with paragraphs 23(4A)(b) to (d) if: (a) Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Act 1997 had not been enacted; and (b) no amendments had been made after the commencement of this section to the industrial award in respect of the contributions to be made by employers to superannuation funds or RSAs for the benefit of their employees in the class; this Act has effect as if: (c) the industrial award had so specified and had otherwise complied with those paragraphs; and (d) the provisions of the industrial award relating to the calculation of the contributions were the same as those that applied immediately before the commencement of this section.2 Section 32U Repeal the section.I also table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.20:26:005179Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Cadman) in his summing up of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 claimed that it represented award simplification rather than award stripping. Just what does he think is going on here? What this bill does is remove from the Industrial Relations Commission the power to consider and deal with any matters relating to superannuation. This is not simplification; this is stripping. The commission will not have the power to resolve superannuation issues or superannuation disputes. Many workers will be worse off as a result of this process—for example, the 26,000 employees in the textiles, clothing and footwear area and in the hospitality area who do not earn $450 a month will not get anything under the superannuation guarantee. They will lose the superannuation they get pursuant to their award. Many of these workers are part-time and casual workers, and many of them are women. Under the relevant industrial award they receive entitlements at the rate of three per cent of their wage. They are getting superannuation from their award, even though they get no superannuation under the superannuation guarantee. That is a modest accumulation of superannuation but, taken over the long term and allowed to compound, it will translate into a healthy account balance. My question to the parliamentary secretary is: will those part-time and casual workers who currently receive superannuation under their industrial award—because it has a lower minimum wage threshold than the superannuation guarantee level—be better off or worse off?Workers who receive monthly or quarterly payments pursuant to the award will be deprived of those payments. Instead, they will depend on the annual payment of the superannuation guarantee. This is likely to affect them adversely in two different ways: the first is that the Institute of Actuaries has calculated that, over the course of a working life, workers who are receiving monthly rather than yearly contributions would be better off by about $16,000, almost twice the annual age pension. It all adds up. The second is that, when companies become insolvent, employees miss out on their legitimate entitlements—for example, superannuation entitlements. This has arisen very recently, in circumstances such as Cobar and Woodlawn. Employees should not miss out on superannuation entitlements. If the payments are being made on a monthly or a quarterly basis that will be a better arrangement than is provided for by the superannuation guarantee. It will represent a better protection for workers and it is a protection which workers should not be deprived of. On that basis, we do not support the legislation nor the amendments. The question the parliamentary secretary needs to answer is whether workers who receive monthly or quarterly payments are going to be worse off or better off.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—What did you do for them? You forgot about them.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Under the awards, they received entitlements. If you take away the awards, those entitlements are no longer going to be there. That is simply not good enough.Furthermore, this is a matter which is not going to benefit employers. For example, some employers who pay the employees' superannuation contributions via payroll deductions because the award allows it will be better off and some will be worse off. Employers who can no longer use payroll deductions to pay their employees' superannuation contributions will have to resort to other payment methods which will involve substantial transaction costs—this again from the government that promised to reduce red tape for small business. There are employers who currently have the level of superannuation contributions defined in the award as a percentage of ordinary time earnings or some other measure. They could be worse off if that is removed. Some superannuation funds use a definition of ordinary time earnings for determining the level of superannuation contributions. (Time expired)20:31:005180Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I get sick and tired of hearing Labor Party members come into this place trying to oppose very serious and important reforms proposed by the coalition. It ought to be recognised that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 makes superannuation administration easier for employers. If one listens to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), one could be mistaken for thinking this was a capitalist plot to undermine the rights of workers. Mr Deputy Speaker Reid, you would be aware that nothing could be further from the truth and that this bill is a positive reform. It is a reform which will make superannuation administration easier for employers while being fair for employees. It is genuine superannuation reform. It will be easier for employers to administer, and the fact that this bill removes an unnecessary layer of regulation is something which ought to be applauded and supported by the opposition.The member for Wills claimed that we posture and that we do not support the reduc tion of red tape for small business. This government has pledged that, in our first term of office, we will take away, we will cut away, we will strike out, 50 per cent of the red tape and the bureaucracy affecting small business—UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—How are you going so far?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member for Wills ought not interject because he would know that the government has delivered completely on this very important aim. In contrast, the Labor Party managed to tie down the small business sector to the stage where they were spending an increasing proportion of their time filling out forms and completing government requirements. The government is continuing to cut back the red tape. Labor, by comparison, loves red tape—and we reject that approach. What we aim to do is create an environment where small business can spend increasing amounts of time doing what small business does best—that is, being small business, creating jobs—but the opposition will not support the government in this particular aim.The bill before the chamber brings real benefit to employers and employees in our federal industrial relations system. Most people would recognise the removal of superannuation from awards but opposition members do not—because they are the troglodytes of the Australian political system.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—Follow Somlyay on One Nation.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—That's the only party you haven't been in.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is obvious that the ALP has it in for small business. The fact that opposition members are not prepared to come into the chamber and make worthwhile contributions is absolutely pathetic. When the next election is held, whenever that is, I believe the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) will be swept from office because they are seen as being irrelevant. They are negative and they are refusing to support important reforms initiated by the government. One can look at the original speech on this bill made by the honourable member for Reid. He said that he was very concerned about workers' rights. Indeed, we are all about creating an industrial relations system which is fair to employers and employees, but he overlooks the jobs created by small business. He forgets that the best way to create jobs is to have a healthy small business sector. We aim to continue to create an environment where small business can grow and invest. When they grow and invest, they create jobs, and that means that our children and grandchildren will have the opportunity of getting one foot on the employment ladder.So the ALP has it in for small business. The fact that ALP members have the audacity to come into the chamber tonight and oppose this very important change indicates that they have not learnt the lessons from their defeat in 1996. This is a very important change. It seeks to make superannuation administration easier for employers by excluding superannuation provisions from awards. It is positive, it is forward thinking, and it does not hurt the rights of the workers; in fact, it creates new opportunities. The Labor Party stands condemned. I believe the Labor Party at this very late time ought to change its mind and support what the government is seeking to do. It is about time it supported real, meaningful and necessary reform such as that contained in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 currently being considered by the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.B. Reid)—I call the honourable member for Wills.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I believe the procedures in this place allow all members five minutes in rotation.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Each side.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—No, that is not what the standing orders say. I believe that other members who have not yet had the opportunity to speak are entitled to address the House prior to the same member speaking again. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your call.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—My understanding of the standing orders is that it moves from one side of the chamber to the other. The honourable member for Wills was on his feet first, so I give the honourable member for Wills the call.20:36:005182Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The remarks of the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) help explain to people just why the Liberal Party's vote has collapsed so dramatically in recent times. He seems to be living in some kind of parallel universe, where taking away from workers entitlements that they presently have is somehow in their interests. The Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 is going to mean that you cannot go to the Industrial Relations Commission to resolve issues to do with superannuation. The commission will not have the power to deal with those issues so you are on your own, you have got to deal with the boss. That is not something which is going to act in the interests of workers generally. If the Liberal Party wants to go on parading that as the kind of thing which will be in the best interests of workers, it is little wonder that its vote has been falling in the catastrophic way that it has.I indicated in my previous contribution that I believe this has some untoward effects in relation to employers as well and that some superannuation funds may use a definition of `ordinary time earnings' for determining the level of employee contributions required which is different from the award. So some employers could find themselves having to pay out more in superannuation guarantee contributions as a result of the removal of superannuation from awards.I think what the government is looking to do with the amendments before us now is prevent that situation from arising. In relation to awards they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say, `The awards are gone, you don't have recourse to those any more in your own interests; however, if it suits the employers, we will have the arrangement where we can have a notional superannuation figure being given effect to.'This is a proposal that will prevent disputes concerning superannuation matters being resolved satisfactorily and, as a result, it is likely to give rise to more industrial action. In the first place, the Industrial Relations Commission will no longer have jurisdiction over these matters. So if employees have a dispute with their employer, they will have nowhere to go. Recently we saw the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal have its powers gutted by the Bishop decision in the Federal Court. So at present, at least until further notice, it does not have any binding powers in relation to superannuation, so you cannot settle disputes there. The Australian Taxation Office handles only certain matters; it does not handle where superannuation contributions can go. If employees have a dispute with their employer, as proposed by this bill they will have nowhere to turn—and that is a recipe for industrial disputes. Indeed that is the reason why superannuation became an industrial matter and a matter which the commission had jurisdiction over some years ago.The other question is: is the bill intended to give employers unlimited power to direct where their employees' superannuation contributions will go? This is the sort of thing which has given rise to industrial disputes in years gone past—Woolworth's versus the storemen and packers and so on—and is likely to give rise to industrial disputes in the future. I put it to the parliamentary secretary that this bill is a direct contradiction of the Prime Minister's promise that no workers would be worse off under his government. There are workers who will be worse off if this legislation passes. It should be withdrawn, at least until the issues concerning choice of fund are resolved. It is worth noting that the Industrial Relations Commission has just gone through an award simplification process, and they did not deal with superannuation.For all those reasons, we do not support the bill before the House. We do not support the amendments. We think they are more evidence of a government that is out of touch with the need of ordinary workers to have security about where their retirement incomes are going and some security in the knowledge that there is an independent authority that can deal with superannuation matters and superannuation disputes.20:40:005183Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—I just wonder who the opposition and the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) are putting a case for. They say it is in the interests of the worker but, of course, we are suddenly told there was a dispute over superannuation between Woolworth's and the storemen and packers—the union, I expect.We have had an impassioned plea on behalf of those whose earnings are less than $450 a month. I was in this place when Labor brought in the superannuation guarantee charge and said that it would not apply to people who earned less than $450 a month. Coming back to who gets the money, the worker or the fund—and more likely, in the interests of the opposition, the union fund—we can do a simple calculation. Most of the charges addressed to the management of superannuation are flat fees. So we are having an argument put up about what people who would have $3 a week of superannuation paid under an award, sent off at great expense to the employer and to the employee, would get back. It is $40 or $50 a quarter to manage the fund; then there is the 15 per cent contributions tax, which Labor introduced at the time of the superannuation guarantee charge—the up-front tax. How much does the opposition expect will be left for the worker? It is highly profitable, of course, for those who are getting well paid to manage union superannuation funds.This whole opposition proposal in terms of award simplification is about protecting the rights of trade union bureaucrats. If they have not got all these extraneous matters to deal with, their members start asking them, `What are you here for? My superannuation is now covered by the superannuation guarantee charge; I understand that. I know the interest that the tax man takes in that.' The powers available to the tax man are draconian. Employers who fail to pay on time are charged double. And they say they need a dispute settling procedure! We are going to have another place where a few lawyers and others line up to debate something and, more importantly, give great opportunities for the trade union movement bureaucrats to keep their jobs. What is better than an award to justify your existence and your very substantial payroll. One does not have to ask too many questions as to how John Coombs got his winery if he was not well remunerated—BI4MILESMr Miles—A winery?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, John Coombs's winery—he grows chardonnay grapes—is in one of the most salubrious areas of rural New South Wales. I guess it is probably $2,000 an acre country. The realities are that these people have fought desperately to protect the jobs of trade unionists, and the more detail they can get into an award the better.The fundamentals of this issue are that the Labor Party, having discovered the deficiencies of award superannuation and brought in the superannuation guarantee, is now trying to fight to protect the interests of the union bureaucrat who just has another reason for existence when in fact all matters relative to superannuation are now covered in another bill introduced by the Labor Party which now wants to convince us that it is worthless, that there has to be some other proposition available for certain people.If the Labor Party thought it was so important when they brought in the SGC to have some superannuation paid on behalf of those earning less than $450 a month, why didn't they put that back in the SGC argument? Why didn't they do it then? Why did they leave one group of people on three per cent when the others were going to 12 per cent? There is no logic in their argument. Part of it is their policy to oppose everything because they might win a vote, even one, and the other part of it is that they know their trade union bosses want them to protect their privileged position. I have just demonstrated what they are doing for workers. Workers get nothing out of it—nothing whatsoever. This is the remarkable part about it. It is the same with so many other aspects. (Time expired)20:46:005183McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Let us first of all get back to first principles about this matter. The first principle is: why should the parliament pass a law to say that, if the parties agree that a matter should be in an award or if, as a result of evidence put before the Industrial Relations Commission, the matters are determined appropriate to be in an award, that is inoperative? That is what we are doing. There are awards in which there are provisions that go beyond the requirements of the superannuation guarantee legislation. They may apply to individuals who are not covered. They may have set higher standards than the award. They may have special industry specific provisions. Of course the same piece of legislation, the Workplace Relations Act, says that you cannot have industry-wide agreements either. Those are also banned by this legislation, not by this bill that is before us but by the bill we are amending—the Workplace Relations Act.So it is not a question of saying that some new provisions should be introduced to facilitate superannuation. There are not very many people affected directly by this piece of legislation at the moment—far more than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Cadman) would like to admit, but not millions. We all accept that. Why should the parliament carry a law to say that the provisions which apply to them, which they value, are inoperative? It is true about a lot of other matters too. On 1 July many matters are going to be struck out of awards—many of them very minor, many of them members in this parliament could not conceivably appreciate would ever be significant to a worker in the workplace—but matters which have been determined either by agreement or by arbitration should, because of the special circumstances that applied, be introduced. Yet the parliament has said that those matters are all gone.Ironically, they say that this is all about union bosses. Essentially, unionists will win back most things taken out of the awards by agreement because they have unions to represent them. They will negotiate pretty well. Some of them will not get all their conditions back, but most of them will. Non-unionists will get nothing. They are the big losers. We are supposed to be here saying that this is about the defence of union officials. The big losers out of this award simplification process are non-unionists. The fact is that everybody knows that is true. No waterside worker is going to be worse off as a result of stripping back their award. They do not like it, and it means that people are going to have to do a lot of negotiation just to get back to where they started from, but unionists, particularly those in strong unions, will do okay. Non-unionists will lose those conditions.So the whole principle of those awards is simply a flawed concept. The bill the government first introduced before it was amended was much worse. It did not have 20 allowable matters that now we are proposing to take down to 19; it had far fewer. The provisions, for example, about outworkers—which at least to some extent have been preserved by the Senate, although I think some matters in the commission might undermine the extent to which that is effective, but the intention of the Senate was to preserve them—were not in the government's original proposal. The government did not consider that the protection of outworkers was something that an award should be allowed to cover or an industry agreement should be allowed to cover—it should be done enterprise by enterprise—when these are the very people who have no bargaining power or else they would not be outworkers. It is just a fundamentally, philosophically flawed concept.The parliamentary secretary to the shadow Treasurer, my colleague the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), has outlined the financial cost to a small number of low paid workers in their retirement. The people who need it most lose the most. (Time expired)20:51:005184Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—I have listened to the opposition members in this debate on this workplace relations legislation. I have not yet heard anyone rebut the government's arguments. I am concerned about that because I think they are playing this mantra of idealism about unionism as well. I think it is an important debate because, as we go into the 21st century, the relationship between the worker and the employer is very important. A lot is said and thought about these particular issues but not necessarily thought about in great depth, especially by those from the opposite side because they come from a background of conflict amongst the employer and employee. That is their background. They come through this force-field of confrontation, of aggression amongst the workplace. The important thing is that the modern workplace is all about working together for the common goal, the common vision. That is what is missing from the debate on the other side. They are still locked into this 1970s and 1980s way of thinking, and they have not yet stepped forward.There are a number of matters that the other side has put forward in this debate. For instance, it talks about workers who earn under $450 a month. If you extrapolate that out, how much of the costs associated with their superannuation investment will go on fees? It is around $180 a year compared to $160 a year in fees. A very small amount is going back to the worker, and it is quite unfair.The opposition also talks about awards. If, as the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) was saying before, those low paid workers are affected by their losing all their superannuation in fees, why aren't the unions out there servicing their membership by trying to increase their base salary to cover their loss of superannuation? This is an opportunity for the union movement to step forward and represent these workers a bit better than they have been.The opposition speak of the ramifications of the superannuation guarantee levy compared with the award. What have the Labor Party got against the superannuation guarantee levy? They speak tonight as if it is a great worry, when they are the ones who brought it into the parliament in the first place. Surely they should be supporting that particular issue. We have had speaker after speaker criticising their own legislation and their own policy from a few years ago.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—And we are proud of it. You all opposed it. We supported it.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—You should listen to what they say before you write the speeches.3V5Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS—This debate is very important, and those on the other side ought not to interrupt. It shows their scant respect for the workers they are talking about. This is very important for Australia and Australians and how they deal with one another. Small business in Australia is a very important part of the Australian business culture, yet compliance costs, the need to follow SGLs and the need to follow awards with superannuation are too constricting. In fact, small business people say, `I don't want to go through the bother of employing people because it's just too hard.' This legislation is about making it easier for small business people to make those partnerships with those future employees—to bring together employees and employers to work together for the common good of that enterprise.The worries of the Labor Party are unfounded. What it is worried about is the old-world thinking. It thinks it is losing the mantra of the union movement. It thinks it is losing all those things that it worked hard for back in 1925. But it is 1998 now; we are moving into the 21st century. It is all about small business and employees of small business working together. If the Labor Party sees a problem for workers earning $450 a month or less, get the unions off their backsides to represent them a bit better than they have been and ask for those things that they might be losing in this legislation to be part of their base salary in their new awards. You cannot ask for something more simple. Why is the Labor Party trying to support the union movement in parliament? (Time expired)20:56:005185Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The honourable member for Cowan (Mr Richard Evans) refers to issues of conflict between employer and employee and says that we are looking at or driven by the conflict model. Nothing could be further from the truth. The industry funds to which he refers are joint enterprises between workers and employers. Their boards have joint memberships of employers, workers and union interests, and they represent the modern form of industrial relations where employers and employees do endeavour to get together for the good of the enterprise.Indeed, it is this government which seeks to take us back to the conflict model of the past—the conflict model of the previous century and times past—which we have endeavoured to avoid and in relation to which we have endeavoured to take steps forward. It is the government which is guilty of the old-world thinking here, seeking to take away from workers things like the Industrial Relations Commission and, with it, the proper way to resolve any disputes which might occur. A lot of employers have said, `We are in favour of the industry funds and the way in which the superannuation guarantee has operated,' and they have been only too happy to sign up to workplace agreements and the like to get around the government's proposals concerning choice of fund and so on.The member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) talked about this being driven by `trade union bosses'. It is a bit cute for this government to be claiming the hand of vested interests and so on in this. Nothing is clearer in relation to both the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 and the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 than that the government is trying toget the banks and other vested interests a slice of the superannuation action.We stand, without any reservation, for the value of industry funds in handling superannuation matters, because it is industry funds which have been there trying to look after the workers' best interests. Rather than saying, `We want to make a quid out of this large superannuation cake,' it is industry funds which have been driving down costs, management fees, overheads and so on within the superannuation area and introducing a genuinely competitive environment into that area. It is the government which has form in looking after vested interests on this issue.The debate in the consideration in detail stage has called up some of the general industrial relations issues confronting this nation, and it reflects some of the differences of view between government and opposition on these matters. I think it ought to be said that we have seen overseas some of the results of the sorts of policies which this government is following by seeking to weaken—or, indeed, smash—unionism and thereby place workers in a more unequal negotiating situation with employers by reducing full-time jobs, by attacking job security and so on.The experience, if the US and others are any guide, is that what lies ahead may not be collective prosperity but the reverse and that we could quite easily see an era of diverging interests, of widening inequality, of declining fortunes for people in the middle. The evidence from the US is that the use of independent contractors and temporary employees has been a way of cutting wages and benefits and previously permanent workers find themselves back with their old companies on a rent-a-worker basis with less attractive employment terms.By 1995 in the US some 29 per cent of all US jobs were no longer full time or permanent. The result of that is that inequality has grown. Since 1979 most families, the bottom 60 per cent, have suffered a decline in family income while other income groups have enjoyed an increase. So the great increase in wealth in the past two decades has gone only to the better off. That will be the result of what is described here as award simplification—that is, award stripping. What will happen is that those who are already well off will be better off but the great majority of working families will end up being worse off. That is why we are not going to support this legislation and why we continue to believe that superannuation should be an allowable award matter.21:01:005186Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—With two addresses coming from the opposition, neither member has taken the opportunity to rebut my claim that when the opposition in government set the threshold for the superannuation guarantee charge of $450 a month it did so because there would be no net return to the worker on superannuation paid under that figure because of the charges and the tax that applies. Let me remind the House that the tax that Labor introduced on the up-front tax that is deducted is deducted first, so the employee's funds are reduced by 15 per cent. Then management fees and other costs are deducted after that and they go on being deducted forever. The other fact of life is that, in this area of casual employment, at $450 a month, frequently that is not 12 months of the year. It is mostly for much shorter periods such as seasonal aspects, et cetera. That applies in the tourist industry as well as the grape picking industry, if you want to make that comparison. The reality is that there was never anything in it for the worker. The people that first recognised that were the Labor Party when they brought in their superannuation guarantee charge. So there has to be another reason.I heard the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) bemoaning the plight of workers in the United States. Excuse me, but I thought I read the other day that they have four per cent unemployment and the longest likely period you will be out of work is five weeks. That is pretty tough, isn't it? Secondly, they want to quote wages without any reference to their purchasing power. You can live much more cheaply as a worker in America than you can in Australia because the necessities of life reflect the wage levels. We went through that whole period of domination of the Australian industrial scene by unionists who went home and started organising their next pay increase claim immediately after the last one was granted. That was supposed to help workers when in fact the major beneficiary was government through bracket creep. Every time you increased wages by $10, the employers' costs went up by $15. That went into the price of the goods and was reflected in inflation and Mrs Housewife went down to the supermarket with the $10 less tax to confront the $15 increase at the supermarket. And we called it progress!My father could keep four kids, a car and us all in pushbikes on six quid a week and my mother never worked in her life while today, with all the progress that the industrial movement delivered us, you cannot afford a house unless both you and your wife work. Some people say women work because they want to, and I say good luck to them if they do, but the economic facts of family life today are that you cannot afford the fundamentals that people afforded before without you both working. That is where you got us to.The reality is that nobody needs the protection of an award in this matter. The member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) was in here today telling us how important it was that awards covered such things as training in the use of chemicals when the state government of his own political persuasion has responsibility for those activities. Why would you duplicate it? Why would you add all that additional cost? Why would you confuse the employer because he does not know which law he is supposed to follow? It is silly. We want awards in the simplest form as the safety net. In the seconds I have left to me, I have to tell you that, 30 or 40 years ago, when I first entered the hotel industry, we had a 42-hour week and a flat hourly wage over six days. It seemed to work pretty well, but over time we got all these bits and pieces put into it until it became so complex that I had more fights with my staff wanting to know why they got paid more last week than this week. They worked the same hours, but if they worked them in the daytime instead of the night-time they got a different pay. They reckoned they were getting dudded the week they got less. I said to them, `Let's say we divide all the costs of employing you by the hours you work, including your holiday pay and everything.' It is a pity I cannot go on with this. (Time expired)21:06:005187Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I want to thank those who have contributed to the debate and point out that new subsections 12(a)(3), (4) and (5) will operate so that, not withstanding the removal of superannuation as an allowable matter in federal awards, employers will be able to continue to use the notional earnings basis of employees calculated by reference to federal awards. The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 will continue to operate in respect of an employer and employee as they would have operated if superannuation had not been removed as an allowable matter and the terms of the award had not been varied.This means that, for the purposes of calculating an employee's notional earnings basis and in determining the methodology for reducing an employer's charge percentage in respect of an employee, the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 will continue to operate as though superannuation had not been removed as an allowable award matter. A similar issue in respect of earnings basis existed at the time the superannuation guarantee legislation was originally introduced. Finally, the pre-existing earnings basis not only in those awards but also in existing superannuation funds was preserved in a similar way.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.5188Bill (on motion by Mr Cadman)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5188r5505188Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.21:09:005188Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 extends the gold card to veterans aged 70 and over who faced danger from hostile forces of the enemy whilst serving in the Australian Defence Force during World War II. As shadow minister for veterans' affairs, I indicate from the outset that the opposition fully supports this initiative.The gold card is officially known as the Repatriation Health Card—For All Conditions. It provides entitled veterans with taxpayer funded access to a range of essential health services, including dental care, private patient hospital treatment, optical care, physiotherapy, podiatry and domiciliary nursing care. Access to the card is not means tested and, unlike the white card, assistance is not restricted to an illness or incapacity that is accepted as being war service related. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is also responsible for paying the cost of doctor consultations and pharmaceutical benefits for entitled cardholders—costs which would otherwise be met by Medicare and the PBS respectively.The key aspect of the bill is that it confers automatic access to the card to those who meet the service and age requirements. In this respect, it mirrors the arrangements that apply to three other groups of veterans who enjoy full treatment benefits as a result of earlier Labor decisions. These groups are: surviving World War I veterans, introduced by Labor in 1973; ex-prisoners of war, introduced by Labor in 1974; and ex-servicewomen, mainly nurses, who incurred danger in World War II, introduced by Labor in 1987.I mention in passing that the special measure for ex-servicewomen occurred because an earlier government initiated inquiry had clearly demonstrated that they had been paid less than men during their war service and had subsequently been entitled to less repatriation assistance on their return from the war front. It was thus very much seen as a form of positive discrimination—something that is at the core of our highly regarded repatriation system. I would also stress that, despite sporadic criticisms of this decision by some individual veterans, the RSL and other ex-service organisations agreed to the 1987 decision in favour of ex-servicewomen. In addition to these three groups of veterans, the card is also automatically available to war widows.There is no doubt that the veteran community hold in very high regard the benefits attached to the gold card. They clearly see it as providing them with a degree of security—which it does, at least in terms of the specific benefits that are attached to the card. Equally, an examination of the government's costings confirms that cardholders quite rightly receive considerably more financial assistance than other older Australians do. It appears that the average annual cost to DVA is approximately $4,000 per veteran. Whilst no breakdown is publicly available regarding the cost of individual elements, it is reasonable to assume that the two key benefits are access to dental care and to private patient hospital care.Other veterans, apart from the groups that I have mentioned, are generally only eligible for the card if they have an accepted war caused disability payable at the 100 per cent rate or above, or at the 50 per cent rate or above whilst also receiving a service pension. These other veterans thus have to demonstrate a relatively high level of physical or psychiatric illness that is directly related to their war service.The ex-service community, and particularly the RSL, have warmly welcomed the gold card extension to eligible World War II veterans. They have been lobbying both the coalition and the opposition on the matter for quite some time. I have given them a firm commitment that a Beazley Labor government would honour the promise. In welcoming the announcement, I have reminded veterans and war widows what the gold card does not protect them from. It does not protect them from the coalition's proposed goods and services tax. Only a Labor government will do that. It does not protect them from the harsh and inequitable nursing home entry charges imposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), because the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) has failed to have them exempted from this impost. His contribution to that very important debate for older Australia was simply to remind them that those that are ex-prisoners will not lose a benefit they possessed under previous governments.Nor does a gold card protect veterans from the coalition's series of cuts to pharmaceutical benefits for older Australians, or its cuts to legal aid funding, which is leading to tighter and tighter merits tests and lump sum stage limits being imposed by state legal aid offices. Legal aid services are being reduced at the behest of the federal government and these people are losing the right to fight their cases against the department in a context in which there have been no reductions whatsoever in the amount of money the government is allocating to its fight against these veterans in the system.I turn now to the specific provisions of the bill. In doing so I stress three fundamental points. The first is that some 135,000 World War II veterans already have a gold card under existing arrangements. The second is that the announced extension to an additional 50,000 veterans does not come into effect until 1 January next year. The third is that, despite media reporting to the contrary, not all Australian World War II veterans will now qualify. To qualify, veterans must in fact meet all of the following requirements: they must have served in the Australian Defence Force rather than in the forces of British or Allied countries; their service must have been somewhere within the applicable period of hostilities, namely, from 3 September 1939 to 29 October 1945; they must also have incurred actual danger from hostile forces of the enemy; and they must be no less than 70 years of age.Because it is almost 53 years since hostilities ceased, it is most unlikely that many veterans will be excluded due to the age requirement. Without being critical, the effect of the other three requirements will have quite a marked impact. Some 100,000 surviving World War II veterans do not meet the first requirement—of having served in Australian forces. These veterans and mariners served in the forces of British and allied countries, and later migrated to Australia—some of them very soon after the war. Obviously, many of them have paid taxes in the interim. This is not an opposition estimate; the department gave it to Labor senators in recent estimates committee hearings on the budget.These veterans are of course very keen to also obtain access to the gold card. However, like most comparable countries, Australian governments have traditionally taken the view that responsibility for the provision of war disability pensions and associated health treatment benefits broadly rests with the country in whose forces the veteran served. This is because such assistance is a form of repatriation compensation, the liability for which is not extinguished merely because a veteran migrates elsewhere and becomes an Australian taxpayer and pensioner. Obviously, there is concern about the dereliction of duty by a significant number of allied powers.Whilst I am sympathetic to the frustration felt by allied veterans, our dilemma is that European World War II allies are not pulling their weight in looking after veterans who have subsequently migrated to Australia. In fact, according to the minister's answer to a question on notice I asked last October, only about 5,500 British veterans living in Australia currently receive a British war pension. Only a relative handful receive a pension from Canada, the former Czechoslovakia, Malta, New Zealand and Poland. To place these figures in context, almost 26,000 British and allied veterans from no less than 29 separate countries receive an Australian service pension as a form of means-tested income support.Our dilemma therefore is clear. If Australian taxpayers grant the gold card to the 90,000 or more British and allied veterans who receive no ongoing war service compensation assistance from the country in whose forces they served, we are essentially letting the UK, Netherlands, Polish, Greek, New Zealand, Maltese, South Korean and United States governments off the hook.In saying this I am not suggesting that the matter should forever rest. It is notable that in the voluminous material produced by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and in his several trips overseas to visit commemorative sites, I do not recall him once publicly advocating that these allied countries should take any action to assist their veterans living in Australia. It was equally notable that he completely skirted around the matter in his very brief second reading speech. I trust he will not ignore the matter when he replies to this debate.The second requirement the bill imposes is that a veteran must have served at some time between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945. This is the accepted period of World War II hostilities for service pension purposes and is not in itself in dispute. It thus means that veterans who served in subsequent bomb and mine clearance work in the South Pacific, and in the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces—BCOF—in Japan, are not considered World War II veterans, unless they also served before 29 October 1945. In the case of the relatively substantial number of BCOF veterans, this is clearly a conscious decision by the government. I suspect, however, that the smaller number of bomb and mine clearance veterans may have been overlooked or could not be neatly accommodated. I would be interested in some explanation of the coalition's thinking on this aspect.The third and very significant requirement is that veterans must also have incurred actual danger from hostile forces of the enemy. Effectively, this requirement means that the eligible period of hostilities varies from location to location and would generally not apply at all to someone who spent the war in, say, Melbourne. The incurred danger test for the gold card is that which already applies to the servicepension. The Department of Veterans' Affairs would therefore employ its extensive background to determine applicable theatres of war for World War II—service in Darwin being a clear case in point. Of itself, the gold card decision should not require a fundamental re-examination of the relevantguidelines. I do note however that individual veterans are not necessarily fully conversant with these and, in seeking applications for the card, it would be helpful to publish a summary of them.I understand, from government estimates, that there are in fact some 93,000 veterans who enlisted during World War II but did not serve in a war zone and thus fail the `incurred danger' test. All of these no doubt fully intended to fight for their country, if called upon to do so. However, a repatriation system can work only on the basis of the service that people actually provided rather than on the fact that they were willing to serve if called upon to do so. Otherwise, the entire ADF would have to gain repatriation benefits every time a particular unit saw operational service. This would be impossible to justify.Having canvassed in some detail the position of World War II veterans, I turn now to veterans of other conflicts who have also approached the opposition about access to the gold card. Most prominent amongst these are our Korean War veterans. Some 17,000 Australians fought in the Korean War. According to the act, the period of hostilities stretch from 27 June 1950 to 19 April 1956. Beyond that, we appear to know little about how many have died, how many are still alive and how many already receive the gold card. In passing, I note that this is but another example of the difficulty we all experience in obtaining hard data from DVA. I am not saying it is easy, because a significant number of these people served in a number of conflicts, there were transfers, et cetera. However, it is essentially difficult to make estimates in regard to costs et cetera, and that has been shown in some aspects where the government has had to come back a year later and revise its estimates with regard to the cost of some benefits.At recent Senate estimates hearings, the department conceded that many of these Korean veterans are of a `World War II equivalent age'. Perhaps there is little, then, to distinguish these veterans from World War II veterans, and it is argued that many suffer from broadly similar health problems. Unfortunately, until the results of the current DVA mortality study are known, there is no accurate data on how many of them are still alive and are aged 70 years and over.At a personal level, I have frequently stated that I have particular sympathy for their situation. Whilst not wishing to commit the opposition, I do not see any particular logic, other than precedence, in requiring them to wait 53 or 54 years after war's end to get the gold card. As well as the proximity between the two wars, their case is strengthened by suggestions that Australians who fought in Korea were older career servicemen compared with their World War II counterparts.Sections of the Vietnam veteran community have also been campaigning for access to the gold card. From the mortality and health studies commissioned by Labor, we know that their health status is generally poorer than that of men of a similar age. Their death rate, particularly from particular forms of cancer and from suicide, is clearly above the average. It is a sobering statistic that almost seven times as many Vietnam veterans have died since their return to Australia as were killed in action during the war itself. In this context, the Vietnam veteran community has a particular call on health and support services for veterans. Even setting aside the very real issue of cost, it is by no means clear, however, that changing the eligibility requirements for the gold card is the way to go.In conclusion, I reiterate that the opposition fully supports the bill. There is a need to set clear priorities, as not every veteran group can realistically get access to the gold card. Nevertheless, I seek the minister's responses to the issues that I have raised, and I remind veterans that having a gold card will not protect them from the coalition's other attacks on older Australians.21:24:005191Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I notice that the honourable member preceding me, the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), is incapable of going through a speech without bringing in negative issues and running down what is essentially an extremely good bill—the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 —and one that was brought in by the coalition government and not by the Labor government. In relation to some of the issues that the member raised—wandering, as he did, from the bill—I remind him that it was his government that ran down the nursing homes and left the frail and elderly in homes without fire escapes, heating or cooling. We gained the legacy of what you people left behind.It gives me great pleasure today to speak on this bill because it is something that I have fought for, as have many of my colleagues, and that is the extension of the gold card to more veterans than were eligible under the previous government. On this occasion I will refer to the parliamentary Bills Digest, because I do not think I can summarise better than it has what the gold card will give to veterans around Australia and in particular in my electorate where I have an elderly population and a very high number of veterans. The gold card will give the equivalent of top range cover in a private health fund. The Bills Digest says:The benefits include treatment as a private patient in a public or private hospital, choice of doctor, pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate, optical care, physiotherapy, dental care, podiatry and chiropractic services. The benefits are for all medical conditions, irrespective of whether the conditions resulted from war service. The Gold Card also entitles veterans to transport to and from their medical treatment.It is generous, but it is something that we owe the people who fought for Australia in the Second World War. Over one million young Australians volunteered to fight and were enlisted and, of those, almost 40,000 died. The rest came back with psychological and physical scarring. They had paid that price for this country. They had been prepared to lay down their lives and they gave many years of their lives fighting for their country. We are indebted to them for what they gave us.The obligation that we have has also been mentioned in the Bills Digest. It refers to the report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System. It gives the basic principles which have governed repatriation legislation in Australia. These include:Australia is indebted to those who served it in term of war by enlisting in the Armed Forces, thereby endangering their lives and health and probably suffering economic loss. As a consequence, the nation has a duty to ensure that those who have served, together with their dependants, are properly cared for.Those who have served overseas or in a proclaimed theatre of war, are likely to have encountered greater danger and/or more arduous service than those who had home service and, accordingly, they should have more extensive cover.Compensation and other benefits should be available as a matter of right and not as a welfare hand-out, and in cases of doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of those claiming to be entitled.I could not put any better than that—the debt that we owe our veterans, who are now in their 70s. I think the average age of veterans is now 76—which, coincidentally, is the exact age of my father. In widening the eligibility for the gold card, we have earned the applause of the RSL which has said:Veterans of World War I received an automatic entitlement to the Gold Card 55 years after the end of the war. It is now timely and fair that our veterans of the Second World War be similarly recognised for their outstanding commitment and sacrifice to Australia . . . Again, I can do no more than endorse those words. I would like to acknowledge the efforts that were put in by my own RSLs in an effort to gain the gold card for their members. Specifically, I would like to mention the Keswick and Richmond RSL, and their president, Les Portlock, who continues to work very hard on behalf of veterans not only in his own club but in the western suburbs of Adelaide. I also mention Mr Wray Lee, President of the Edwardstown RSL; Mr Andrew Lush, President of the Glenelg RSL; Mr Doug Spargo, President of the Hayhurst RSL; and Mr Herman Rijpstra, President of the Henley and Grange RSL. In mentioning the Henley and Grange RSL, I would like to pay a tribute to Kay Mosely for the work she does for that organisation.I also pay tribute to the President of the Hilton RSL, Colin Saint, and its previous President, Jack Brown; the Lockleys RSL President, Mr John Auld; the President of the Glenelg RSL, Mr H.R. Jones; the President of the Plympton RSL, Mr Tom Davies; and Murray Lawson, who was previously the President of the North Glenelg RSL. These presidents have worked hard on behalf of their members to achieve this benefit for them. I salute these men, who are in their 70s, for continuing to work for the community and for veterans. I commend this bill to the House.21:31:005192Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—As has been indicated, the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 extends full repatriation health care benefits, including repatriation health card conditions, to Australia's World War II veterans aged 70 years or over with qualifying service from that conflict. It does so on certain conditions. As has been outlined, the veterans who will gain the benefit of the proposed extension of the gold card are those already receiving a service pension on the basis of their World War II service but who have not previously been entitled to the gold card and who are aged 70 years or over. They will have the gold card sent to them automatically. According to the Portfolio Budget Statement, Budget Related Paper No. 1.3B, the department is also aware from its records of other veterans who, whilst receiving a DVA pension but not a service pension, may qualify under the new arrangements. There is a third category for veterans who believe that they are eligible and meet the criteria, and they will have the opportunity to apply to the department.A study of the number of veterans' affairs beneficiaries by electorate indicates that only three electorates represented in this place have fewer numbers of DVA beneficiaries than the electorate of Scullin. It intrigued me that, upon the announcement of this proposal, I had a number of people approach me with some criticism of the actions. The basis of the criticism comes from two quarters. One is veterans from other conflicts, mainly Korea and Malaya, who, because they are aged 70, believe that they have been discriminated against by this decision. The other category is Allied servicemen, especially Commonwealth servicemen. I would like to touch briefly on those two groups of people in the context of this debate.As was outlined by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), the Australian Labor Party can come to this debate with a certain amount of pride in that, back in 1973, it was a Labor government that extended free medical care to all Boer War and World War I beneficiaries. In 1974, free universal medical treatment was extended to all Australian ex-prisoners of war. In 1987, another Labor government extended full medical treatment entitlements to World War II ex-servicewomen.It is also worthy of note that one of the contexts that this debate should take place in is that of the Australian repatriation system being a generous system. It is quite appropriate. It is not something that I have any quibble with. In comparison with other such schemes, this is a very comprehensive one.Certain questions have to be asked about the decision by the Howard government to extend the gold card to this wider group of veterans. First of all, it has been said that it only applies to World War II veterans over 70 year of age on the basis that it occurs at a similar time after the end of the hostilities as was the case of the extension in 1973 to World War I veterans. In 1973, there had been a 55-year period after the First World War. In this case, it is a 53- or 54-year period. If that had been the case—I hope that people do not think I am being pedantic about this point—there would be something magic about the 55-year period. This might then be considered in next year's budget or in the one the year after. Next year's budget or the one the year after will not be given before the next election.There is then the injection into this proposal of the age category of 70. For all intents and purposes, this covers most veterans who would have seen active hostile service in the Second World War. I am not sure what is magical about this age factor. If something can be argued about the age factor, one would have thought that it would become the determinant and should be applied across the board to all veterans, whether they were in the Second World War or Korea and later conflicts. I hope that at the round-up of this debate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) applies himself to answering the logic of it. If age 70 is good enough for Second World War veterans, why would age 70 not be good enough for veterans who saw service in conflicts after the Second World War? As I said, this is something that Korean veterans in particular have raised.The other group of veterans I mentioned are Commonwealth and Allied veterans who are victims in that the repatriation and veterans' affairs systems from the countries they saw service with are not as generous. But a good case is starting to be put by those veterans that, because of the length of time they have, in most cases, lived in Australia, they are also deserving of equivalent treatment eligibilities as Australian servicemen. The honourable member for Reid has put the position that the opposition holds on these cases. I understand it. I understand that in these type of things we are not dealing with a bottomless pit of resources. I understand his concern that, if the eligibilities were widened too far, to maintain that broadening of the eligibility there would have to be a lesser level of benefit granted to all.I think this is something that we must look at, on behalf of veterans such as the returned British serviceman who came to see me, who was one of those who was evacuated at Dunkirk. He put the case to me that, as a postwar immigrant to Australia, he has now lived a much greater portion of his life in Australia than in Britain. He feels that, as an Australian, he is being discriminated against. Even before the announcement by the government of the extension of the gold card, I had been approached by Maltese ex-service people who had said that they felt that, because there was this discrepancy in the way in which their disability pension was looked upon for treatment in Australia, their contribution as postwar migrants to Australia was not being fully recognised.The government—and, on behalf of the government, the minister—should look at these issues and take them as being very serious, because those people who find themselves in the circumstances that I have outlined do feel aggrieved about their treatment.I turn to the argument about whether we should be pushing for overseas governments to pick up what could be quite rightly seen as their obligation. That was the position put on behalf of the opposition by the honourable member for Reid. That, of course, has validity. But I think we have to be realists when we compare the systems that we are dealing with here. There are large discrepancies regarding a whole range of services that are provided to Australian veterans and beneficiaries through the Australian veterans' affairs system, which is the envy of the world.I hope that we live in enlightened times and we are able to find our way clear to have those types of extensions. For instance, it was only during the 1970s that service pensions were extended to both British Commonwealth veterans and other Allied forces veterans. We did not necessarily wait for other governments to take action on those points.Another issue that I would like to take the opportunity to raise as an associated matter to this bill, in the context that this bill will extend health care benefits to a wider population of veterans, relates to some concerns that a number of veterans have expressed to me about their access to hospitals. Indeed, often when these concerns are expressed to me they are put in the manner of, `Wasn't money handed over by the Keating Labor government at the time that the repatriation hospitals were handed to the states or, in some states, handed to private concerns? In the case of Victoria, as this money went to the state government, shouldn't the access that eligible veterans have be guaranteed?' Some express disquiet that they are put on waiting lists for the treatment for which they have disabilities. I think that is of concern.Another particular concern—and I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin)—is that the Repatriation Hospital, Heidelberg, that was handed over to the state system was subsequently amalgamated with the Austin Hospital. There was a great deal of sense in this, in that both the Austin and Heidelberg Repat are along the Bell Street corridor. As part of the package and the deal put together by the Commonwealth government and the state government at the time of the handover of the Heidelberg Repat, the future of another institution along the Bell Street corridor was considered, and that was the Preston and Northcote Community Hospital. The Preston and Northcote Community Hospital has now been replaced by the Northern Hospital, Epping.Advantage was taken of the amalgamation into the state system of the repatriation hospital to rationalise the way in which hospital services were to be delivered to the northern suburbs of Melbourne. The Northern Hospital, Epping, lagged a little but was finally opened earlier this year. That was greeted with some joy by the local community that I represent. That joy has been a bit dampened as that institution already faces, two or three months after its opening, having to find savings of six per cent to operate for the next financial year.I want to return to the Austin Repat. Both the Austin, on its own, and the Repatriation Hospital, Heidelberg, were fine institutions, well respected, and were great examples in their different ways of the way in which public hospitals contribute to medical training and the way in which public hospitals contribute to particular specialities. There was some concern when the two institutions were amalgamated, but that was accepted by the local community, by the returned service community and by veterans who saw that they still had access to high quality hospital care. Since that amalgamation, things have slowly turned a little sour and the new institution is not necessarily overwhelmingly and universally accepted.I can remember having a discussion with Bruce Ruxton, the Victorian President of the RSL, and a good mate of the honourable member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson). I do not necessarily have as good a relationship with Bruce Ruxton. I think that he thinks that I misunderstand a little bit when it comes to the way in which he acts. I have said on other occasions—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—There are mates, and mates.HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—There are mates, and mates. We will leave it at that. But the thing that I do accept about Bruce Ruxton, putting aside some of his political views, is that he, as President of the RSL, has been a fearless fighter for the rights of the ex-service community in Victoria. I think that a lot of the work that the Victorian RSL does, on behalf of those that it represents, goes without the recognition that it should get.I know that he expressed particular concerns in the early days about the access that veterans were having to Heidelberg. I think that, to a certain extent, some of those matters were ironed out because a consultative process was gone through. But, now that we have this problem of veterans finding themselves on waiting lists for treatment throughout the state, there is great concern.The final great concern about the future of the Austin and Repatriation Hospital is that it has been taken out of the north-eastern health network of Victoria. It is now a stand-alone institution. The rest of that network went and joined the north-western network, but the Austin Repat was put as a stand-alone institution. Why was it put as a stand-alone institution? It was put as a stand-alone institution because that was the first step in the sale of that hospital to private concern, and now it has been confirmed by the state government's announcement that that is the case.In the context of this debate, I believe that in respect of measures such as this—the extension of the gold card—which widen the eligibility, especially for those who are going to get the extension in the state of Victoria, it has to be noted that, in the calculations that have been made about the cost of this, there is an impact on other parts of government health systems not only at the Commonwealth level but, as I understand it, flowing through, of course, to the state system.What is the Commonwealth's position now that the repatriation element of the hospital that is known as Austin Repat will be lost through private sale? What are the guarantees about the specialities that continue there that have a focus on the veteran community? What is the guarantee that the expertise over the long history of the repatriation hospital Heidelberg, and before that when it was one of the army hospitals, will not be completely lost?This is something that Minister Scott has been silent on in the past, but I hope that he really does take this as a serious concern that many of us have on behalf of the veteran population, especially in the northern suburbs. There are other issues about the sale of Austin Repat that are cause for wider concern—for example, the way in which it will interface with the wider community. But that is, of course, a debate for another day.As the honourable member for Reid outlined, the opposition supports this proposal. Indeed, the honourable member for Reid took to the shadow cabinet and got its approval for a proposition along the lines of what is being put into this piece of legislation. I hope that we are not seen, as a previous speaker said, as totally bringing negativity into what we agree is a measure that has a deal of merit.The questions that we raise are about the way in which the eligibility and the implementation have been decided. As I said, if the age of 70 has some meaning, why don't we expand the eligibility to all veterans over the age of 70? In the case of Commonwealth and Allied veterans—and I especially put a plug in for Commonwealth veterans—I hope the government will have a look at the way in which we can indicate to those migrant veterans who contributed to Australian society that we recognise that we also should look at their eligibility for the wider type of benefits that the Australian veterans affairs system makes available to Australian veterans.21:49:005196Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—One of the privileges of being a local member is the opportunity to work with representatives from many organisations in the local community and from a broad cross-section of the community. I have especially enjoyed the privilege of working with local veterans organisations in my electorate of Macquarie and being able to share with them their sense of immense pride, quite rightly, in the service that they gave to this country in times past. It has also been a privilege to share with them at Anzac Day services their experience of the reminder of the losses and the sacrifices that they made, to focus on those conflicts that Australia has been involved in and to absorb the sense of emotion, atmosphere and gratitude that the community has for the contribution they made to this country.No-one would deny the debt of gratitude that we owe to the many men and women who willingly laid their lives on the line for this country, many whose lives would never be the same. Of the close to two million people who, over this century, have served in a number of conflicts overseas, some 102,000 paid the supreme sacrifice. Obviously, there is nothing that can be done to compensate for those 102,000, but we as a nation have an immense responsibility to recognise and to provide compensation for those who did return and assistance for the families of those who did not.Clearly, help with health care is one of these primary areas of responsibility and priorities that we need to address. We have seen the very proud role of the repatriation department over the years in providing security in health for those in our veteran community who have suffered and experienced ill health over those years. This legislation, the provision of the gold card, is aimed at extending the benefits to those who faced danger in World War II.During World War II, 993,000 Australians—926,900 men and 66,100 women—confronted hostile enemy forces as part of the Australian forces. Of those, 39,366 never returned and 66,553 were wounded. Many—perhaps most, in fact—later suffered a range of conditions and illnesses as a result of their service.The provision of the gold card is tangible evidence of the Commonwealth's recognition of its responsibility to returned servicemen and servicewomen. Some 257,000 veterans and their dependants already receive the gold card. These include: all veterans and nurses from World War I, all prisoners of war, all female World War II veterans, all veterans with a 100 per cent or more disability pension and a number of other veterans on a part-pension. It also includes war widows, widowers and their dependent children—including 135,000 World War II veterans. In addition to this, a number receive the white health card—that is, free health treatment for war caused disabilities and conditions.This legislation provides for an extra 50,000 World War II veterans to access the gold health card. In my electorate of Macquarie, this will include over 260 veterans. The extension of the gold health card will provide care equivalent to the top range of private health cover, including private patient hospital treatment, choice of doctor, concessional rate pharmaceuticals, optical care, physiotherapy, dental care, podiatry and chiropractic services. These benefits will apply whether the conditions resulted from war service or not. The gold card also entitles veterans to transport to and from their medical treatment. Those over 70 on 1 January next year—the starting date for the provision of these benefits—and those who meet the service criteria, that is, those who were involved in operations against the enemy and who incurred danger from hostile enemy forces, will benefit. The cost of this program is around $500 million over the next four years. This is a totally appropriate and tangible indication of our national indebtedness to those who served Australia in time of war, those who risked all for the sake of their country and those who no doubt suffered significant financial loss as well as the loss of their health and separation from their loved ones.This legislation is further evidence of the Howard government's commitment to our veterans community. Allow me to remind the House of many of the other initiatives of this government to support our veterans community. In the area of health, there is the provision of $600 million over the next four years to move to direct purchasing of health care services for entitled veterans—this will increase the Commonwealth's flexibility to negotiate high quality health care for veterans—a medication management and awareness program to make sure veterans get the maximum benefit from their medication; measures to improve health services for veterans in rural and remote areas; the review and extension of treatment support programs following the results of the Vietnam veterans health study; the funding of research into the role of herbicides in causing birth defects; and the community care seeding grants. These grants have benefited a number of veterans in my electorate of Macquarie: for instance, a $1,500 grant for the Blue Mountains ex-servicewomen's organisation to help them purchase office equipment to assist their work with the veterans community and a $20,000 grant to equip a spa facility in the palliative care unit to be built at Springwood hospital.As well as the area of health, there have been other areas where this government has shown a very clear commitment to the welfare of our veterans community. In the area of pensions and benefits, for instance, there is the benchmarking of war widows' pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings; 150,000 recipients will benefit from the rising living standards the rest of the community experiences. As average weekly earnings generally rise faster than inflation, so our war widows will experience a real rise in the value of the war widows' pension—a rise in their living standards. In the last quarter this was a fortnightly rise of $6.80 for singles and $5.70 each for couples.The pension bonus scheme provides a cumulative bonus of 9.4 per cent per annum for each extra year of work beyond pensionable age up to a maximum of five years. A cut in the interest rate on defence service loans is now reduced to 1.5 per cent below the average market rates and capped at 6.85 per cent. There will also be measures to facilitate the payment of pensions.Thirdly, there is a range of other initiatives under the Their Service—Our Heritage program: for instance, community seeding grants to assist veterans' groups who are catering for the specific needs of their respective communities and the regional war memorial program, which has so far assisted 800 communities with local commemorative activities. My community has also benefited from these measures: for instance, grants to the Blue Mountains Vietnam Veterans and Associated Forces, the Springwood RSL, the Kurrajong Colo RSL and the Katoomba RSL.Fourthly, greater recognition will be given to Korean war veterans: for instance, the commencement of work on a nominal roll of Korean veterans is a first step into a major study of the mortality of Korean veterans which should lead to policy improvements to benefit them and the development of a program of commemorative activities related to the Korean War. Fifthly, there is increased funding under the Office of Australian War Graves to assist in the refurbishment of war cemeteries, including $70,000 for a war cemetery at Richmond in my electorate.These are all appropriate and tangible measures to recognise the contribution and the sacrifice that our veterans community has made to and for Australia. The Howard government has demonstrated in all of these areas a very real commitment to the needs of the veterans community. The gold card legislation, which will provide access to the gold card for another 50,000 World War II veterans, is a very positive initiative and I commend the bill to the House.21:59:005197Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak for the veterans community in my electorate. In doing so, I think it is fair to say that the response in my electorate to the announcement of the extension of the veterans' card entitlement has been mixed. That is not because of any action I have taken as the local federal member for Batman; if anything, because of the large veterans community in my electorate, I have been eager to promote these changes and extensions both through my newsletter and through the local RSL clubs, with whom I have a good working relationship.It is also interesting to note that, following the government's announcement, the demand for information has been huge. I have gone out of my way to actually make available to veterans in my electorate the information kit that was supplied by the government concerning this decision. However, I have also been careful to explain to the veterans community that these extensions are useful only if the level of benefits enjoyed by the current card holders is maintained. That is an important point. You cannot take with one hand and give with the other.I remind the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised the veterans community that he would err on the side of generosity in support of our veterans. I would also remind the House that the Prime Minister's mean-spirited policies have actually resulted in a slow decline in the standard of services available to veterans. The veterans in my electorate have reminded me that, as a result of a number of decisions taken by this government, they now feel a sense of insecurity in their lives. Unfortunately, they have a right to feel insecure and forgotten by this government because the Prime Minister has, for example, imposed massive extra charges on aged care services, reduced veterans' entitlements to pharmaceutical benefits, procrastinated on mortgage rates for war service loans, reduced veterans' access to legal aid and, finally, drastically reduced staff numbers in the Department of Veterans' Affairs.The two big gripes from veterans in my electorate are, firstly, the fact that they feel betrayed by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), who has failed to have veterans and war widows exempted from the annual entry charge of $4,380 to nursing homes and, secondly, the increasing cost to veterans of pharmaceutical benefits because of the repeated cuts to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme imposed by this government. The government should not think that veter ans and their families will easily forget the fact that their benefits are being cut back just because some of them are to now get a gold card. Whilst it is true that the veterans community in my electorate has generally welcomed the extension of the gold card, many of my constituents have canvassed with me the fact that there are anomalies in the extension—anomalies that the government would like brushed under the carpet.Just last week, a couple of old veterans came into my electorate office with a copy of the nice glossy brochure produced by Veterans' Affairs and they explained to my staff that the system was not working for them. It was not producing the goods that they thought the government had delivered on budget night. They were quite upset, for example, at the unusual decision to introduce an age cut-off. It took my staff quite some time to calm them down and explain that it was not our officers' fault but a problem created by the Prime Minister and his Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The minister can rest assured that, whenever I meet my veteran constituents—who are a very large group in my electorate—I will sheet home the blame to this government. I will explain how you have not stood up for veterans in a whole raft of areas, allowing their benefit rights to erode and erode.Under these changes, veterans of World War II who are under the age of 70 on 1 January 1999 will not be entitled to the gold card until their 70th birthday. Given that it is almost 54 years since the end of World War II, only those servicemen who enlisted at a very young age will miss out. The 68 year old in my electorate office was more than a bit miffed that his old mate who was 71 was getting the gold card, when he, who had done the same time and seen the same horrors of war, was not getting the gold card. I would remind the House that, when free medical treatment was provided to World War I veterans by the Whitlam government in 1973, no age barrier was imposed. Similarly, in 1988 under the Hawke government, the gold card was provided to female veterans of World War II without an age limit.Other anomalies in the extension of the gold card which I suspect will create problems for the government are, firstly, that the veterans who enlisted during World War II and who served within Australia were deemed not in danger from hostile forces, but they later served in Korea. These people may now be aged 70-plus. They certainly met hostile forces in Korea, but they will not be eligible for the gold card under these arrangements. Secondly, allied and Commonwealth veterans who served with a Commonwealth or allied force during World War II will not be eligible unless they actually lived in Australia before enlisting in Commonwealth or allied forces.The benefit rights of Australian war veterans were established thanks to the Toose inquiry into the repatriation system—which gave its report to Gough Whitlam's Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, Senator Wheeldon, in 1975. I believe some very important principles were established by Justice Toose. More importantly, I believe those principles are relevant today. In that context, as the Toose report suggested, I believe that, firstly, Australia is indebted to those who served in times of war, endangering their lives and health and probably suffering economic loss. Secondly, Australia therefore has a duty to ensure that those who served, along with their families, are properly cared for. Thirdly, those who served overseas or in a proclaimed theatre of war are likely to have encountered greater danger and/or more arduous service than those who had home service and, accordingly, should have a more extensive cover. Finally, compensation and other benefits should be available as a matter of right, not as a matter of a welfare handout, and in cases of doubt the doubt should be resolved in favour of those claiming to be entitled.On that basis, I suggest to the House this evening that as the community's memories of the horrors of World War II fade, we should not use this as a convenient excuse to forget our obligations to our veterans and their families. As our veteran community ages, the principles established more than 20 years ago by Justice Toose are ones we should seek to maintain. They are, in essence, that Australia should remain proud of the sacrifices made by our veterans and their families, and we must always remain indebted for the services they provided to the Australian community.On that note, I suggest in conclusion that we should accept the social obligation we have to our veterans and, on the basis of the decisions of the government to date, in accord with the issues raised by the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) this evening, we should seek to go out of our way to ensure that over time we extend the benefits to those who have missed out as a result of the government's decisions embodied in the veterans' entitlements legislation before the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.Adjournment5199Motion (by Dr Kemp) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.519922:08:005199Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—Yesterday was the first day back after the two-week parliamentary recess, and the government is in a state of paralysis following the Queensland state election results, displaying confusion, lack of direction and fear of the unknown.Question time yesterday came to an abrupt end half an hour or so before the usual time. The government ran out of business last night at 9.15 p.m. and the House was adjourned ahead of the standard 11 p.m. finish. Tonight we again adjourn early—that is, at 10 p.m.—because the government has again run out of business. Why are we here in the national parliament, other than to debate issues of concern to our fellow Australians? Why are we here as legislators, paid a not inconsiderable sum of money—in excess of $100,000 per annum—plus a very generous superannuation scheme, plus a plush office suite at Parliament House, including an en suite, plus another plush office, staff and other top-rate facilities in our electorates, other than to raise issues of the day, enter into debate, listen to what we each have to say and at the end of the day agree or disagree with each other as the case may be?Today will be remembered as a day of shame for the coalition in government. Despite the fact that we are going home early tonight because the government has run out of business, my private member's bill to debate the issue of flight paths over Sydney, which will affect one million residents, was blocked from coming forward today by the coalition. The promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) prior to the election when he said that he would raise the standard of the parliament was obviously another one of his so-called non-core promises. The people of Australia have now put all politicians on notice that broken promises will no longer be tolerated.However, my greatest disappointment today was with my former coalition colleagues from the Liberal and National parties. I felt a degree of sadness to see them vote, as dictated by the party leaders, that I `be not further heard'. What reason will they give to their electors, who are Australians like the rest of us, people who pay their taxes so we as legislators can represent them in the national parliament, for not allowing me to bring forward a bill for debate? After all, we are not drowning in a sea of bills for debate; in fact, we are going home early because we have nothing to do.I remind my former colleagues that the eyes of Australia are upon you. Demand to know why you are being dictated to by the party hierarchy to vote to stop another elected federal member of parliament from speaking in the parliament, especially when the government has run out of business. The answer can only be that the government, of which they are a part, is frightened of debating the issue. And as that can be the only reason, what are they doing supporting a government policy that cannot stand up to scrutiny?My Sydney Airports Bill 1998 is even more important now than it was when I gave my first reading speech in the national parliament some eight weeks ago, because the Prime Minister has now publicly admitted for the first time that his government cannot meet its aircraft noise sharing promises and wants to back away from targets set in the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport.Since the introduction of my bill, I have received wide support from aircraft noise affected communities for it. I will quote some examples. The first is from Save Our Skies (SOS), which represents residents in the inner west. They said:Thumbs up for Zammit's Airport Plan . . . Mr Zammit's Airports Bill is what Sydney residents need and deserve. It is one of the few rational and fair proposals concerning Sydney Airport's noise problems to surface in a long time. SOS fully supports the Zammit Bill.The second quote comes from the North-West Residents Airport Group (NWRAG). They wrote:Dear Mr Zammit—this letter is to express the support of the North West Residents Airport Group for your initiative in Parliament yesterday in putting forward the Sydney Airports Bill 1998.The final quote is from the Eastern Coalition of Airports Groups (ECAG)—that is, from the eastern suburbs of Sydney. They stated:Eastern Suburbs supports Zammit's Private Member's Bill to establish the Sydney Airports Commission.What will coalition members say to their electorates when they return at the end of the week? What will they say they have achieved to justify their continued role as a federal parliamentarian? Will they conveniently forget to say that they were party to stopping another parliamentarian from debating an issue that affects one million Sydney residents, even though the parliament was running out of business?Coalition members should examine their consciences, and I urge them to do so. It is a great honour to be elected to parliament. Coalition members who voted today that I be not further heard, that the Independent member for Calare, Mr Andren, be not further heard and that my Sydney Airports Bill 1998 not be debated have, I would suggest, little of which to be proud.520022:13:005200Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—I did not plan to deal with the Sydney Airport Bill when I rose to my feet, but I cannot, either as the Chief Government Whip or as a member of the Liberal-National Party coalition, sit here and listen to that sort of drivel without responding to the nonsense dictated by the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit). Here we are, a parliament that he says has risen early. Tell me, sir, when?ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Last night.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—We did not rise early last night.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—You adjourned at 9.15 p.m.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—Mr Deputy Speaker, am I now supposed to apologise as the Chief Government Whip because the parliament moves early into adjournment? What an extraordinary proposal! If I were a whip not anxious to have the voice of the people on both sides of the parliament and the Independents heard, then we would have moved, of course, sir, to adjourn. But, in the words of the member for Lowe, we ran out of business. Why was that, I wonder? It was because of the nonsense dictated to this chamber by those in another chamber where the two major parties do not hold sway. Because of the nonsense in that chamber, we were forced into a compressed legislative program over the last two weeks. We now have a legislative program that allows the member for Lowe, and anyone else who wishes, to participate in debate for whatever time they choose.Because we are a government that believes in free speech, we have in fact extended the adjournment so that everybody could participate, so that the member for Lowe, who allegedly has been silenced by the government, could stand up in the adjournment debate and say what he had to say. But did we see one semblance of decency from him? Not a skerrick. He says, `I have been denied the opportunity to have a debate or a vote on my bill.'ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I view the words that were used by the Chief Government Whip as offensive and I would ask him to withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No. That is the prerogative of the chair, and I do not regard them as offensive. He will not withdraw.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—Let me then add that if in fact the member for Lowe believes that he has been unfairly curtailed by the government in its Selection Committee process—ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: comments in this chamber should be directed through you. I would urge you to tell the Chief Government Whip to do so.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Lowe. The honourable member for Wakefield will direct his remarks through the chair.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—Gladly, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the member for Lowe believes that in some way the Selection Committee, which you very ably chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, has in some way unfairly curtailed him, he might like to reflect on the uncomfortable truth for him that generously the government ensures that he, as a member of the Independents, will have a voice on that Selection Committee and that the person representing him on that Selection Committee has the opportunity to put the case for him. I am still waiting to hear.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—But who has the numbers?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will be silent.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Do you have a point of order? If it is a frivolous point of order you will march.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker, he asked a question of me.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. I warn the honourable member for Lowe. Do not try it again.HE4Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREW—I actually rose not to deal with the trivialities addressed by the member for Lowe but to make a plea on behalf of residents of my electorate who live in the copper triangle and who currently have inadequate television reception. They have submitted to me a petition that did not quite meet the general requirements of the parliament, but the petition sufficiently moved me to stand here tonight and alert the parliament to the fact that I do have 400 residents in the towns of Moonta, Kadina and Wallaroo whose reception is inadequate. That ought to be addressed. I will forward the petition to the appropriate minister, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston).Those towns are about 140 kilometres from the broadcast centre in Adelaide, towns on the margin of an adequate television reception area, towns that need booster facilities in order to get an adequate reception. In fact, it is my proposal not only to alert the parliament to that but also to alert the minister to that and to ensure that something is done to improve the television reception for those who find themselves unable to have the same range of television as people in urban Australia would take for granted. (Time expired)520222:18:005202Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—I wish to rise tonight on a matter of considerable concern to many of my constituents, particularly the very substantial number of constituents in my electorate who are of non-English speaking background and also the many others who support a decent, tolerant, multicultural society. We do have a growing debate in our community about these issues, a debate which I am only too happy to be engaged in. But there has to be some honesty, some decency, in this debate.I wish to raise some comments with respect to a book that has recently been published and which received a lot of publicity, a book called Among the Barbarians written by journalist Paul Sheehan. Given the way that some of these issues are treated in the debate, I cannot give you a full and detailed account of my true views of this book. The way this debate tends to go is that those expressions themselves would be seen as a badge of honour for people peddling those views. I will try to use even more restrained language than usual in putting my views.This book is very poorly researched. It is a classic example of pop journalism from somebody who has reached a conclusion long before he has made any attempt to examine the evidence and then trawled through every last corner he could to find any shred of indication that his prejudiced view is in fact correct and then put this up as some sort of conclusive evidence that we have a so-called multicultural industry full of rorts, an immigration system full of rorts and that the whole society is suffering severely and adversely as a result. I will give you a couple of examples.He says, for example, that Ros Kelly lost her ministry as a result of rorting of the grant in aid program, which is a program to assist particularly newly arrived migrant communities. Anybody who was here at that time will recall that Ros Kelly had nothing to do with the grant in aid program and that the program she was administering had absolutely nothing to do with multiculturalism or, indeed, the immigration process.He also states that the immigration system is full of rorts and cites continually as evidence for this a Sydney academic Richard Basham whose evidence includes such highly scientific and researched statements to support his claim that the immigration system is full of rorts as `Everyone knows it'. That is the quality of the evidence that is put forward in this book to demonstrate some of those absolutely sweeping assertions and statements that are totally unsupported by any serious evidence in the book.He draws all sorts of innuendoes from particular circumstances to suggest that in some way where you have people of non-English speaking background involved in a situation that means therefore that that is the cause of the situation. One example is a union ballot fraud case with respect to the Postal Workers Union in New South Wales, which happened to involve, amongst some Anglos, some people of Asian background with membership of the union. He does not state it explicitly, but the meaning is very clear in the book, the implication is very clear, that the reason there was a problem was that there was Asian background membership of that union. That is the implication in the book. It is very unfortunate that that sort of view is being peddled and, indeed, being treated seriously by supposedly quality newspapers which put forward this sort of material with out actually seriously looking at the book and analysing what the nature of this so-called evidence is and how substantial it actually is.Things like crime statistics are put forward. The overrepresentation of people from particular ethnic groups in our prisons is advanced as some sort of indication that they are presumably more prone to commit crimes. What he does not look at is the actual class distribution of people—for example, new migrants from Vietnamese or Turkish backgrounds. He does not look at underrepresentation of people from a Turkish background owning Mercedes Benz, for example, to illustrate the point that one of the reasons there will be an overrepresentation of some groups is that you have an overrepresentation of people in lower socioeconomic groups who are more prone to be involved in crime.It is a book that I would not recommend to honourable members. I think it is highly unfortunate that the debate about immigration and multiculturalism in our society is being conducted on this basis. It has quotes in it that are in effect things like, `This person has an Asian wife, therefore he cannot have racist views,' which is the modern day equivalent of, `Some of my best friends are Jewish.' That is the level at which this book deals with these issues. I think that is very unfortunate. I welcome serious debate about multiculturalism in this community. I welcome serious analysis and serious research. Unfortunately, this book does not deliver any of those.520322:23:005203Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—Digital television is an issue in regional Australia which will continue to focus people's minds on their options for reasonable entertainment. The government has brought in a policy which will deal with this matter. I want to raise in the House tonight the issue of the solus operators, as they are known, who I believe are worthy of some extra consideration. When you consider the ratio of the consumer to capital amount required, it is a very expensive business. Compared with the metropolitan areas, I think it is very important that that factor be considered by the government. Secondly, the principle of multi-channelling will also give an improved regional service. In my electorate, particularly in the upper Spencer Gulf area, there is only one commercial channel. I believe it is very important that the government consider the multi-channelling option.The third point that I think is particularly important is that solus operators be given similar protection to that given to metropolitan operators. Metropolitan operators in the policy position are being granted their part of the spectrum for a fairly significant period, and I believe the solus operators should be granted the same rights. It is very important that in that process we retain the localism of the television stations involved. It also enables local business, in its own way, to get a fairer go in the marketplace rather than being dominated by the large metropolitan centres.In my brief contribution this evening, I want to highlight to the government the fact that it is important to recognise the very significant extra capital costs for the region compared with the metropolitan area. The multi-channelling option will be very important and will give greater diversity. Protection for that investment should be on the same basis as that given to metropolitan operators.520322:26:005203Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I wish tonight to read a letter from a constituent. I will leave a few words out to protect the family's identity. It is addressed to me and says:Dear SirI write this letter with my concern to the New Youth Training Allowance which comes into operation as from 1st July 1998. On Wednesday 3rd June 1998, my daughter and I went to our [local] Centrelink to ask questions about the New Youth Training allowance to see if she would be entitled to any benefits only to be told by a member of the staff that he did not know much about it and was to be trained on the 16th June 1998. The booklet form had to be returned to Centrelink on the 10th June although another member who had been trained and Centre Manager could not answer my questions satisfactorily.I have a daughter who is 18 yrs old and is receiving New Start Benefits of $174.80 per fortnight. Also she is entitled to Health Care Card and Concession Card for travel on public transport. Because my income is in excess ($42,223) in 1996-97 under legislation passed in Parliament my daughter becomes solely dependent on me and as she is to receive no benefit from Centrelink she must pay a full price for consultation with a doctor, pharmaceuticals, public transport (to be increased). Her current Health Care Card and Concession Card had to be returned to Centrelink.Information from the health fund is that my daughter is not eligible to be listed on the family benefit because she is not a full time student or studying 3 days per week. I pay family auxiliary cover and ambulance. Single auxiliary cover is $9.75 per week. NSW Ambulance also advises that she is not covered by family membership (she is currently covered with her Health Care Card).My wife has chronic illness and sees her general practitioner three times each week and has a prescription each week. Some weeks she has to get more than one.My wife and I have reached the Pharmaceutical Safety Net ($612) but under legislation my daughter cannot be included in the benefit my wife and I receive, therefore her prescriptions will cost her the full price (she is asthmatic, eg Serevent inhaler will cost $42.00 compared $3.20 she pays now).I pay $189.07 per fortnight superannuation (due to be increased again in October) for my retirement in 2002.Although my daughter has never voted in a State or Federal Election I feel that she is being let down by the current Parliament especially Senator Newman, the Minister for Social Security.There is an attachment which points out that the gentleman's income was $42,661 in 1996-97. He indicates that his tax payment was $11,771. When one adds to that his superannuation payments plus his health insurance, the income that he received, before he bought anything at all, was just over $24,000 a year. If this gentleman were to leave his job and go on social security, that household income would be about $20,000 a year plus concession cards.This government says it is pro-family and supportive of people on lower incomes. An income of $42,000 seems high until you take into account the cost structure in the family. I have met this man, his wife and their daughter, who is trying very hard to get a job. She has had some interviews and she is optimistic about her prospects, but she is devastated that at over 18 years of age she has to go back to asking her parents for pocket money. It has done enormous damage to her personally, to her self-esteem and to her sense of self respect.For this family, $174 a fortnight is a lot of money. They have made good preparation for their retirement. They are paying off their house and they have a car—all the usual costs. They would be better off, quite frankly, on social security. This so-called youth allowance, this so-called benefit and improvement in the system, means that a family earning $42,000 a year would be about equal if not working at all. Those on the government side are aware of this. I do not doubt that you are getting the same kinds of concerns coming through to you. It is about time you brought it into the open and owned up. (Time expired)520422:31:005204Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I rise with pride tonight to talk about two very special projects within my area, and I touched on them in question time today—that is, the work for the dole programs. In my electorate there are two very good and very strong programs with very dedicated people running them. There is the local beautification work being done by the Beenleigh group, Phantast, and also a program run by Boystown. It is a community help project. They are providing real hope, experience and opportunities for many young residents. As a bonus, it is leading to real jobs.After just eight weeks of the Phantast project, 27 young people gained full-time employment and five gained part-time employment. Under the Boystown project, eight of the original 26 participants now have full-time jobs. Since the community help project began in February, over 40 local families, and these are families in crisis, have been directly assisted by the Boystown community help work. Project organisers at Boystown have said that the participants are committed, reliable, hardworking and that most of them will be able to secure full-time paid employment as a result of their involvement. Last week the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), who is in the House tonight, saw it first-hand. I took him to a project on which over 20 young people were working on in the Beenleigh area. He could not believe the immense pride they demonstrated in the jobs they were doing within the community. I can still see the looks they had on their faces when they thanked the minister for bringing this program in. They said that before the program was put into place they felt they were lost in their community, that no-one really cared and that they did not get the chance to display the dedication they could provide to some employer. They told Minister Kemp how grateful they were to be given this opportunity.One really lovely story I would like to relate here is that the opposition says we are using our youth and that they are not being paid correctly for the work they are doing. But I can tell you that the youth told us how grateful they were to be given this opportunity. Only two weeks ago a soil testing company within my electorate saw the work for the dole sign on the truck where our young people were working and actually stopped and took on from that job on that day five of the young youth off the work for the dole program. These are very disadvantaged youth I am talking about in the community. Some cannot read nor write. However, the soil testing company said that they were prepared to take these youth on because they were willing to demonstrate that they cared about their community. They had an attitude, and that was the most important thing for this particular employer.This has happened over a number of weeks in my electorate. I am just so enthused that we are giving your young people this opportunity to prove their worth. Over the past we have seen some very useless programs provided by the previous government that used our youth to make them feel worthless at the end. This program turns it around and gives them the opportunity not only to be involved in their community but also to show that they care. It is leading to real jobs, and that is what good government is all about.I would like to take this opportunity also to thank our minister. He announced today that, over the four years, he will be providing 100,000 jobs to our young people in our community. Again, this is taking an interest in our community. This is what community pride is. What binds us all together is the fact that adults and youths in our community can work together to end up with results that they can see for a long time to come. This encourages other young people to be involved in the community also.Labor, as we know, voted against this bill when it was in the House. It went to the Senate and got thrown back over here with a lot of amendments, but I think they saw that the community was responding against them when they were trying to scrap work for the dole. Should they ever get back in government—I hope that will not be for another 20 years—they said they would scrap work for the dole. There would be a lot of young people out there who would be totally shocked at that sort of attitude when they can see real jobs coming out of real training.I would be the first one to say that we never ever said that there would be real training in this job; it was more motivation and a sense of community pride in that they were actually worth something. This is what is working. I will support it 100 per cent after seeing the look on the faces of the youths when the minister went there the other day to see them working first-hand. (Time expired)520522:36:005205McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I have previously spoken about the closure of the only Medicare office in my electorate of Barton. Indeed, in my annoyance, I have described it as a political rort. In fact, 1,800 constituents of mine have a similar opinion and have signed a petition opposing the closure of Rockdale Medicare office and the inconvenience it has caused. When you are annoyed about something you look at why it has occurred. Indeed, in May 1996 I asked the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) what the determining factors were in deciding where to open a Medicare office. I asked him about the state of the facilities in my electorate. There is the St George Public Hospital, a major teaching hospital, and the St George Private Hospital in my electorate. There are also over 200 medical practitioners, which is about the eighth largest district for doctors in all Australia.I asked Dr Wooldridge whether he would consider those factors in the establishment of a Medicare office in Kogarah. He advised me that Medicare customer service centres are determined according to strict guidelines. You are probably prepared to accept that—an independent commission determining things according to strict guidelines. But then what happened? Fourteen out of the 17 Medicare offices closed in the state of New South Wales are in Labor electorates. I have lost my only one, despite those statistics to which I have referred.Being a little annoyed about that, you would smell a rat—14 out of 17. So I further pursued the issue. I asked the minister whether those guidelines apply equally to the closure as they do to the establishment of a Medicare office. He said, `Yes, they do.' I asked, `What are those strict guidelines?' and he replied, `Well, look, a number of factors are taken into account.' So strict guidelines become a number of factors. Then he said, `You have to look at whether it is metropolitan or country. There has to be a minimum of 150 cash services per day.' We would have got that in a lunchtime at Rockdale. The minister then said, `At the end of the exercise, there is the need, as well, to look at the competing interests of other localities and to decide priorities.'We know his priorities. His priorities are to effect a political rort. That is what he did. I asked him whether he had regard to the fact that there was a substantial increase in the numbers of customers needing reimbursement from Medicare as a result of those medical facilities to which I have referred. In May this year I asked him whether the Health Insurance Commission considered the demand for services and he said:The HIC is unable to comment as this is a State government matter.Clearly he decided to close Medicare offices without having regard to the demand for medical services in areas. That is gross incompetence. I then pursued the matter further and asked what sort of service criteria he was interested in obtaining for these Medicare offices. I asked him whether there were any performance indicators. Specifically, I asked him whether the Health Insurance Commission reviewed waiting times at Medicare offices. He came back with the honest but bold answer:There has been no formal review of waiting times for Medicare offices in NSW.This is a minister who does not care what service is provided by Medicare to Australians. He is completely oblivious. He has closed offices for blatant political purposes. I have this petition sponsored by the St George Hospital because of the inconvenience that has been caused to patients in my electorate of Barton, many senior citizens who cannot even find the Medicare office in Hurstville. If this minister were sat down there and cross-examined on why he has interfered with the independent and objective discretion of the Health Insurance Commission, he would have no answers other than that he has perpetrated a rort on the patients in my electorate of Barton.520622:40:005206Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—It was only a few weeks ago that I had the pleasure of welcoming the support of both the federal and the state governments in establishing the Townsville based North Queensland Medical School, the first new medical school since 1975.Mr Entsch interjecting—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I inform the member for Leichhardt that it will go to Cairns. In welcoming that support, I said that the establishment of such an institution in Townsville, Cairns, Mackay and Mount Isa would be a major win for rural and regional Australia, the benefits of which would be felt for many decades to come.Townsville is already a centre of research into rural health and tropical medicine. The establishment of a medical school alongside the new hospital currently being constructed near the James Cook University in time will help establish Townsville and North Queensland as a world leader in indigenous, rural and tropical medicine. This is very much my vision for Townsville. That is where I see Townsville in 10 to 20 years time.But it is a vision that goes well beyond medical research. Townsville has the capacity to become a regional and a world leader in other fields of research and development as well. One of those fields is that of marine science. Like tropical medicine, Townsville is very much at the forefront of marine science in Australia and throughout the Asia-Pacific region.Between James Cook University, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—all located in Townsville—in terms of the quality of research into, the education about and the management of our tropical marine environment, what Townsville has to offer is second to none. I think we should now be thinking about the possibilities of even closer cooperation between these world leaders in marine science.The Great Barrier Reef world heritage area is about 2,000 kilometres long, representing an area of about 350,000 square kilometres. It is without doubt one of the jewels of Australia. It supports a huge domestic and international tourism industry, as well as commercial and recreational fishing. It also suffers the impacts from what happens on land, to our grazing land and so on, our river catchment areas, our coastal strip, et cetera.But the pressures that affect the Great Barrier Reef are not exclusive to North Queensland. Every coastal community along Australia's 36,700-kilometre long coastal strip has to manage their marine environment and balance the competing pressures placed upon them. The Australian Institute of Marine Science, headquartered in Townsville, has a branch located in Western Australia in Karratha—one that I have been very fortunate to visit in the last several weeks—which is doing outstanding work in the Timor Gap and other areas, well away from Australia's heavily populated east coast.Indeed, the Great Barrier Reef makes up only a small fraction of Australia's 11 million square kilometre exclusive economic zone. By any measure, 11 million square kilometres is a massive management area. It is an area rich in marine life and environmental value, as well as being rich in fishing, mineral, tourism and recreational opportunities.The efforts of organisations such as AIMS, GBRMPA and James Cook University's Marine Science Department are vital: firstly, in order to properly develop an understanding of our marine resources and, secondly, in order to set about effectively managing these resources and opportunities. While each organisation is autonomous, a significant degree of cooperative research and information sharing exists between them. This should continue and should be enhanced.As the federal member for Herbert, I have had the pleasure of seeing the work of each organisation in action, both individually and as a team. I have even had the pleasure of attending and participating in their seminars and conferences. There is a lot to be said for autonomous organisations engaging in cooperative working relationships.As AIMS noted in their media statement after budget night:Maintenance of the national infrastructure for science and technology is very important, and the new funds for AIMS will be used to modernise laboratories and provide world-class facilities for our scientists, who have already shown that with the right support they can produce top quality research results.It is true that they can produce top quality results. I think marine science and research in Townsville will go from strength to strength over the next five to 10 years. Certainly I will be working to facilitate that, to my utmost ability.520722:45:005207Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Several weeks ago, prior to his sudden death, Charles Connelly had his last letter published in a newspaper. That the letter concerned me is incidental to this tribute. That it concerned justice and fairness—topics central to Charles's life and existence—gives rise to some observations of my own.Charles was a passionate advocate of honesty in public life. He was a grand fighter for a cause and an inveterate believer in the Australian way of life. He was unswervingly Catholic and totally fearless. He was born into a working-class family in Sydney in 1923 and fought for his country in World War II. He rose to a significant position in AMP, then went on to become a prominent spokesman in small business and superannuation. He was frequently on television current affairs programs when many times the interviewer or combatant felt the sting of his considerable debating skills.He had no time for John Howard as Treasurer in the Fraser government and even less for him as Prime Minister. He was a good judge of people. He adored his wife, Norma, his daughter and his grandchildren, and loved his church, though he would tolerate no heresy from the pulpit and would send a caustic note to Rome if he detected any.He was staunchly patriotic and unashamedly conservative, though he told me recently that he would hand out cards for the Labor Party if Howard went with a GST. He stuck to his principles and never wavered in his belief that Australia was a great country that was being stifled and murdered by the mediocrity of political parties and their apparatchiks—elected and all too often unelected—who dictated policy and believed they knew better than the masses.Eighteen months ago he told me that out there there was a wall of anger being feverishly held back by the forces of political correctness. So he saw the Hanson movement as a return to the values that could reinvigorate Australia, take account of the bush and pick up that great mass of people who he saw as significantly left out of the political process. In the main, these were the real battlers whom he believed Howard had dishonestly used to further his own political ends.He saw the need to unite like peoples, to disown the far right elements of One Nation but to nonetheless bring under the banner of a United Australia Party those people wanting change from One Nation and the other political parties. He would have been overjoyed by the Queensland election result but, alas, he passed away before he saw it. I am sure he got St Peter to phone through for the results, and I am sure he would be arranging the celestial tally room for the massive breakthrough, come the federal poll.The last time I saw him was at his home recently. He was delighted to have me visit. Sometimes he was baking bread. He would brew the coffee, slice the fruitcake and, wickedly, bring out the white wine before I left. He hated puffery and pretentiousness. Testimony to this was a recent letter to the Australian in which he debunked suggestions of problems for adopted children such as his own daughter. He told me he loved her more than he could possibly explain. He referred to those who came out with highbrow theories on this and other topics as typical EBBS—educated but bloody stupid. I spoke to him a lot. He was a touchstone of wisdom and clarity of thought. I will miss him enormously. He wrote poetry too. May I just read this poem entitled A Once Jolly Swagman:From the shadowy depths of hopeless night, Spirit of South LandPlucked my soul from sorrow and bore me gently in His HandTo lofty snow-capped mountains, remote in space and time,And there revealed to me the full flowering of this love of mine.I saw her abundant treasures, riches, all that man could needAnd a free and happy people toiling with no thought of greed.I saw truth and justice, like her golden sunlight gleaming,And even Black Brother, innocent, happy in his time of dreaming.SO I LAUGHED, AND IT WAS MUSIC IN THE SOARING WINDS OF HOPE;ITSEEMED ALL THE WORLD CAME-A WALTZING MATILDA WITH ME.I say about the late Charles Connelly: what a fantastic bloke he was and I will miss him very much.520822:49:005208Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise tonight to talk about an exciting project that is occurring in the Frankston area of the Dunkley electorate. It is a community out reach program which is basically complementary to the emergency relief program that is funded by the federal government.Emergency relief is financial assistance provided to people in crisis, whether it be a one-off episode or an ongoing problem. About 900 agencies throughout Australia are currently distributing emergency relief funds on behalf of the Department of Health and Family Services. A sum of $23.9 million is provided in the 1998-99 budget, and this is linked to CPI increases.An emergency relief program review was announced in 1997, and we are hopeful of seeing some positive outcomes from that review. One of the positive things that I hope will come out of that review is support for community based models such as the community outreach service proposal. This program is a local initiative funded by the Body Shop and supported by the Monash University's Department of Social Work and Human Services. It is implemented through the Frankston Community Support and Information Centre under the guidance of John Murphy and with the cooperation and support of the centre's manager, Vicki Martin. It involves having a care worker working alongside aid recipients on agreed courses of action to address the causes of their financial crisis in return for the provision of emergency relief. The caseworker coordinates referrals to other services and other agencies, and enters into a contract, an undertaking, between the agency and the recipient to make sure that certain courses of action are carried through. That may involve seminars, counselling sessions or referral to other agencies, as I mentioned earlier.One of the things that in my mind highlights this program is that the emergency relief aid is viewed as part of the strategy to resolve the factors that have created the financial crisis in the first place. A number of the local emergency relief providers indicate that regular customers are coming for emergency relief. This suggests that emergency relief in some cases is being looked to as an income supplement. That concerns me in that the whole purpose of providing emergency relief is to get over a crisis incident or something that is not of an ongoing nature.I have also heard how some of the social security advances to social security recipients are being used to artificially increase living standards and not for some ongoing material project such repairs to a car or the like, or something to aid in their employment. Smaller community agencies like citizens advice bureaus do not have the broad range of options that are available to bigger providers such as the Salvation Army, the Smith Family and the Brotherhood, which often include financial counselling and other programs for more serious crisis type problems.This project is a very exciting example of how community organisations providing emergency relief are working with the recipients of that relief to overcome their problems. There is a partnership between the recipient of the emergency relief and the provider. A course of action is agreed upon to solve the problems that created the crisis. I think this is a very exciting way to look at a preventative type model for emergency financial relief into the future.This problem prevention approach addresses the causal factors, as I mentioned earlier, and tries to wind back the incidences of repeat aid requests from people who appear unable to overcome some of the immediate problems that are creating their financial crisis.I am hopeful that my advocacy of this excellent program within government quarters and to the ministers concerned could see the program implemented as a pilot strategy throughout a number of states so that we can realign emergency relief as an aid to achieving self-reliance, problem prevention, and a better use of resources, rather than seeing it viewed as an income supplement to people who are facing some difficulty with their situation. I hope to talk about this further with my colleagues. I think it is an exciting idea which has widespread applicability throughout the country. It is about prevention leading towards a more lasting cure, rather than the use of emergency relief as an income supplement. 521022:54:005210O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Last week, I was informed by one of my skillshares in Corio, Create Geelong, that its application for further funding from the federal government for its JPET program had been unsuccessful. I visited Create's Norlane training centre last Thursday and heard first-hand from clients and staff of their disappointment and disillusionment at this government decision.This government has cut funding to one of the region's most successful front-line agencies in delivering meaningful assistance to Geelong's unemployed. Create Geelong is the only agency which has its training facility located on Geelong's north side, in an area of traditionally high unemployment and very high youth unemployment. According to DEETYA's small area labour market survey for the December quarter 1997, the unemployment rate for inner Corio stood at 15.5 per cent, almost double the national unemployment rate, and youth unemployment in the area is acknowledged to be among the highest in the state.Create Geelong has provided a critical service to young unemployed in the area, and its successful outcomes in dealing with the long-term unemployed raises the question of why this JPET program has not been funded. I am informed that two JPET programs were funded in the adjacent seat of Ballarat—a marginal Liberal seat. I do not begrudge the unemployed in Ballarat access to services they need in today's tight labour market in order to give them a fighting chance of improving their skills and securing a job. However, it is clear from any objective study of the rates of youth unemployment in those two areas that the Corio and Norlane areas have a very strong claim to funding.The need is certainly there, and Create has the runs on the board, with a dedicated management and staff committed to their young clients. The local community is very angry at this decision by the government. I note the presence of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) in the House tonight, and I would like to present to him and to the House some of the letters I have received from young clients, parents and organisations who deal with the problems associated with youth unemployment in these areas.The first letter comes from Melissa Aldridge, who says about the program and the situation in Corio:A lot of people in Norlane and Corio have no jobs and no experience. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment. Kids that have gone through Create Youth Services have either more experience or have a job!Who are we supposed to turn to for help if this place is shut down.There will even be a higher rate of unemployment and kids out on the street. Youth services has helped me so much! Without them I would not have the experience and I would not have the money to enrol myself in a course.Andrew Verheul had this to say:Before coming to Create I had no direction in life. By being involved in the JPET programme run by Create I now have some idea of what I want to do with the rest of my life. Before I became involved in the programme I used to sleep all day, get up in the evening and not care about getting a job or doing anything. The staff here have helped me get motivated to go out and get a job.The next letter is from Simone Devereux, and she makes a very honest statement. She says:I have been going to Create since I was 16 years of age. I left school in year 10 and am very shy. I used to be scared to come out of my shell and talk to anyone which made it hard for me to make friends so I turned to drugs and if it weren't for Lyn and Rob—they are the two wonderful staffers at Create—I would still be into drugs.Brian Manyard had this to say:It is crucial that it remains open because of the fantastic work that the staff here at JPET do such as running programs for people with literacy and numeracy problems, helping people who have trouble getting their licence and accommodation and rent.He also notes some other problems that young people have. One of the parents had this to say:In regard to closing down the Norlane Create Center, I strongly urge you to reconsider your action on this, as my daughter has just left school and this place has been the only place that she can go for help.That letter was from Michele White. Organisations also support the facility, including Corio Community College, which said:It is imperative that this program be allowed to continue, as it is one of the very few programs offered in the northern suburbs of Geelong that cater for young people who are `at risk'. If Create Youth Services is not able to continue, many disadvantaged young people will not be catered for and this will no doubt lead to these young peoples loss of self worth and inability to make their way in todays difficult society.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:005211House adjourned at 11 p.m.Notices5211The following notices were given:Mr Eoin Cameron to move:That the House:(1) notes that (a) each year in Australia more than 1000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed and over 300 women die from the disease and (b) regular Pap smears and appropriate treatment when abnormalities are detected can prevent most cases of cervical cancer;(2) welcomes the new cervical cancer prevention campaign urging women to make an appointment, and not excuses;(3) urges all women to have regular Pap smears to ensure there are no abnormal cells that could become cancerous;(4) encourages all GPs to talk to women about the risks of cervical cancer; and(5) urges husbands, boyfriends, fathers and sons to encourage their wives, girlfriends, daughters and mothers to have Pap smears.Mr Anderson to present a bill for an act to amend the Rural Adjustment Act 1992, and for related purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992, and for other purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Family Law Act 1975.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to extend the operation of the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991, and for related purposes.Mr Reith to present a bill for an act to amend the Navigation Act 1912, and for related purposes.Documents5211The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 June 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part 105 Amendments 1998 12 May, 14 (2) May, 19 May, 20 (2) May, 25 May, 28 (2) May, 2 (10) June, 3 (2) June, 4 (2) June, 5 (7) June, 9 June, 10 (2) June.Instrument 1998 No. CASA 208.Customs Act and Excise Act—Instrument of approval 1998 No. 20.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. LES 23, LES 24, LES 25, LES 26.States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act—Determination 1998 No. 521-s79.Answers to Questions in Writing5212The following answers to questions were circulated:5212(Question No. 2687)26875212Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) At what stage are the negotiations regarding the proposed multilateral agreement on investment.(2) What matters has Australia submitted on its list of reserved matters to which the agreement will not apply.(3) Is the reservation in respect of a matter partial; if so, in each case, what aspects of the matter will be included within the agreement's ambit5212Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)—(3) At the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in Paris on 27 and 28 April 1998, Ministers decided on a period of assessment and further consultation in relation to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment between the negotiating parties and with interested parts of their societies, with the next meeting of the Negotiating Group to be held in October 1998.On 31 March 1998, a copy of the 13 February 1998 draft of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and Australia's Revised Schedule of Preliminary Reservations in relation to the proposed treaty, as at October 1997, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament When tabling the documents, it was emphasised that they are very much in draft form. The Government made both documents and the tabling statement readily available to interested parties via the Commonwealth Treasury's internet web site: http://www. treasury.gov.au. The April 1998 version of the draft MAI is now available via that site. Additional information on the MAI is also on that site.5212(Question No. 2873)28735212Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 April 1998: (1) What health education and health promotion programs does his Department conduct for veterans and war widows.(2) What (a) program and (b) running costs were allocated to the activities referred to in part (1) in (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1996-97 and (iii) 1997-98.(3) Through which appropriation item are the activities funded.(4) What is the forward estimate for expenditure on the activities in (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000.5212Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) My Department has two comprehensive programs in place to address preventive health issues: the preventive health program for the veteran community as a whole and the healthy lifestyles courses conducted by the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (VVCS) for Vietnam and younger veterans.The preventive health program has as its cornerstone the Better Living Plan for the Veteran Community which is a strategic plan outlining my Department's approach to preventive health until the year 2000.The individual elements of the preventive health program include:. a major health promotion grants program which provides funding for substantial programs which address the primary health needs of the veteran community;. healthy lifestyle encouragement grants program which supports smaller health promotion activities;. a dementia program which provides a range of training and materials on the management of dementia to assist carers, providers and those diagnosed with dementia;. a prostate health awareness program, including a book and video to inform the veteran community and health providers on prostate health issues;. the Never Too Late! sport and recreation program in conjunction with the Australian Sports Commission, to provide quality opportunities for veterans to participate in sport and recreation modified to meet their particular needs; . an education/information program for health providers through bi-annual publication of the Veterans' Health magazine which raises awareness in health providers of the major health issues affecting the veteran community.Veterans' Health Week in October each year is the avenue to showcase to the veteran community those programs which have been successful and also the opportunity to highlight to the veteran community the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.The healthy lifestyles programs conducted by the VVCS address:. coping skills and lifestyle management strategies during week-long residential programs in each state;. physical health and fitness through Heartsafe programs conducted in conjunction with MBF and developed in consultation with the National Heart Foundation;. weight management through Gutbusters programs; and. coping skills for partners and children of veterans through psycho-educational groups for women and children.Additionally, in recognising the importance of appropriate medication use, my Department has developed the MediWise program. This program is designed to assist veterans and war widows by encouraging them to play a more active role in the safe use of their medications.(2) Preventive Health Program(i) 1995-96—Program $335,000; Running Costs (Admin) $450,300.(ii) 1996-97—Program $539,000; Running Costs (Admin) $455,300.(iii) 1997-98—Program $550,500 (incl $108,500 for MediWise); Running Costs (Admin) $480,300.VVCS healthy lifestyle courses(i) 1995-96—Program $830,000; Running Costs (Admin) $300,000. Note: programs commenced.(ii) 1996-97—Program $1,130,000; Running Costs (Admin) $300,000. Note: additional funding required for period of innovation and expansion.(iii) 1997-98—Program $835,000; Running Costs (Admin) $300,000. Note: evaluation of effectiveness and cost efficiencies, resulting in some consolidation(3) Preventive health program (including MediWise): Appropriation 2.3 Health Care Services. VVCS healthy lifestyle courses: Appropriation 2.4 Health Care and Services(4) Preventive health program—(a) 1998-99 $980,000 (includes $10,000 for MediWise); (b) 1999-2000 $980,000 (includes $10,000 for MediWise). VVCS healthy lifestyle courses—(a) 1998-99 $1,200,000; (b) 1999-2000 $1,200,000.5213(Question No. 2886)28865213Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) Did the Employment Services Regulatory Authority maintain statistics of breaches by job agencies concerning welfare clients; if so, will the statistics continue to be maintained; if not, why not; if so, (a) who will maintain the statistics, (b) will the (i) number of (ii) reasons for, and (iii) types of breaches concerning welfare clients by each job agency involved in the Jobs Network be include; and (c) will the statistics be publicly available, if not, why not.5213Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Under the Social Security Act 1991 and Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973 it is the responsibility of Centrelink to decide if a job seeker should be breached. The role of Contracted Case Managers in the breaching of clients was to identify activity test breaches and recommend breach action to Centrelink. I am advised that the Employment Services Regulatory Authority did not maintain any statistics on breach activity by Contracted Case Managers.(a) Job Network Members have a contractual obligation to notify Centrelink of any possible breach by a job seeker of their obligations relating to allowances payable under the Social Security Act 1991 and Student and Youth Assistance Act 1973. The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) monitors, and will maintain statistics on, Job Network members' compliance with this obligation as part of the ongoing performance monitoring.(b) Information collected by DEETYA will include the i) number, ii) reasons for and iii) type of possible breaches notified by each Job Network Member.(c) Aggregated data on breaches will be publicly available as part of the evaluation of the Job Network. However statistics on possible breach notification by individual Job Network members will not be made publicly available.5213(Question No. 2906)29065213Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) What specific applications for funding under the Natural Heritage Trust Program have been lodged in respect of the electoral divisions of (a) Shortland, (b) Paterson and (c) Robertson since the inception of the program.(2) Which organisation lodged each application referred to in part (1).(3) When was each application (a) lodged and (b) determined.(4) Which applications were successful and what sum was approved in each case.5214Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Under the Natural Heritage Trust there are a number of specific programs, funding for which is administered by the Natural Heritage Trust Board which consists of the Minister for the Environment, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, the Hon John Anderson, MP. The 1997-98 financial year represents the first year of operation of funding programs under the Trust.Answers to the questions refer only to those projects that are recorded as falling within a single electorate.Table 1 below lists all projects from the identified electorate submitted by the State for consideration by the Natural Heritage Trust Board for support in the 1997-98 financial year. This table contains the proponents of the applications submitted, the dates of lodgment and determination, and the amount approved for each successful project.Table 1—Applications for FundingELECTORATE OF PATERSONPart A Project details (Q1,2,& 3)ProjectIDProjNo.Project TitleLodgedProponent NameEnvironment Australia00007689HV039497Biodiversity Study—Dungog Phase 230/07/97Biodiversity Study Steering Committee00007697HV014097Hunter Community Bushfood Education Project30/07/97Earthcare Park & Education Centre Inc00007790KL005897Tilligerry Nature Corridors—Delineate, Sign Post and Enhance4/08/97Tilligerry Tidy Towns/Landcare00007792KL070697Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan4/08/97Port Stephens Council00008180HV105797Williams River Riparian Zone Protection and Regeneration6/08/97Williams River Care Association Inc00008281HV129297Hunter Regional Seedbank—Hunter Catchment6/08/97Greening Australia NSW Inc00008338HV039397Road Environment Assessment—Dungog6/08/97Dungog Shire Council00008440HV129897Vegetation Field Guides for the Hunter Catchment7/08/97Greening Australia NSW00010620Acquisition—Fame Cove29/08/97New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service00011198ISF11198Best practice for eradication of rabbits from islands11/09/97National Parks and Wildlife Service00011273AV00802Seaham Swamp Wetland Interpretation Station (W049)15/09/97Seaham Swamp Landcare Group—Wetlands Centre00013741Wildlife Interpretation and Education Centre5/05/98Australian Koala Hospital Association Inc.Department of Primary Industries & Energy00010375HV11196Paterson River Site Specific Revegetation Conservation Management Site18/08/97Gresford District Landcare Group Inc00010381HV78496Paterson, Allyn and Williams River Catchment Coordinator18/08/97Paterson Allyn Valley Landcare Group Inc00011239HV078696Community Stewardship of Catchment Water Quality15/09/97Paterson Allyn Valley Landcare Group Inc00011512KL70897Catchment Assessment and Action Program for Karuah River and Port Stephens19/09/97Port Stephens Council00011778HV068997Establishment of Bio-Physical Monitoring Parameters to Assess River Flow23/09/97Department of Land and Water Conservation00011786HV200990Maitland Rehabilitation Works23/09/97Department of Land and Water Conservation00011787HV200190Hunter River Levee Bank23/09/97Department of Land and Water ConservationElectorate of Paterson (continued)Part B Projects approved (Q4)ProjectIDProj No.Project TitleApproved $DeterminedProgramEnvironment Australia00007697HV014097Hunter Community Bushfood Education Project$32,50031/10/97Bushcare00008281HV129297Hunter Regional Seedbank—Hunter Catchment$41,3605/12/97Bushcare00008338HV039397Road Environment Assessment—Dungog$34,95031/10/97Bushcare00007792KL070697Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan$12,00031/10/97Bushcare00011273AV00802Seaham Swamp Wetland Interpretation Station (W049)$27,50031/10/97National WetlandsDepartment of Primary Industries & Energy00011512KL70897Catchment Assessment and Action Program for Karuah River and Port Stephens$49,60031/10/97National Rivercare00011778HV068997Establishment of Bio-Physical Monitoring Parameters to Assess River Flow$56,00016/02/98National Rivercare00011786HV200990Maitland Rehabilitation Works$40,00031/10/97National Landcare00011787HV200190Hunter River Levee Bank$160,00031/10/97National Landcare00010375HV11196Paterson River Site Specific Revegetation Conservation Management Site$90031/10/97National Landcare00010381HV78496Paterson, Allyn and Williams River Catchment Coordinator$80,06431/10/97National Landcare00011239HV078696Community Stewardship of Catchment Water Quality$18,96731/10/97National LandcareELECTORATE OF ROBERTSONPART A Project Details (Q1,2 &3)ProjectIDProjNo.Project TitleLodgedProponent NameEnvironment Australia00007696BW085997Community Volunteer Bushcare Project30/07/97Gosford City Council00008258BW086097Bouddi Peninsula Bush Regeneration6/08/97Killcare/Wagstaffe Trust Inc00008305BW085897Vegetation and Sensitive Habitat Management Plan for the Brisbane Waters and Gosford Lagoons Catchment Area6/08/97Gosford City Council00008316BW086297Cockrowe Lagoon Vegetation Management Project6/08/97MacMasters Beach Bushcare GroupPART B Projects approved (Q 4)ProjectIDProjNo.Project TitleApproved $DeterminedProgramEnvironment Australia00007696BW085997Community Volunteer Bushcare Project$106,83531/10/97BushcareELECTORATE OF SHORTLANDPART A Project details (Q 1, 2 and 3)ProjectIDProjNo.Project TitleLodgedProponent NameEnvironment Australia00008321LM029497Gwandalan to Bonny Boy Gully Creek Revegetation6/08/97Summerland Point Progress Association Incorporated00008445LM014997Redhead Beach Dune Revegetation and Construction of Board Walk7/08/97Redhead Landcare00008337TL063597Budgewoi—Norah Head Green Coastal Corridor Project6/08/97Central Coast Training Company LtdDepartment of Primary Industries and Energy00011803LM107297Habitat in Harmony East Lake Macquarie 23/09/97Belmont Neighbourhood Centre Inc00011755LM114897Design and Implement Stabilisation Works, Salts Bay Swansea23/09/97Lake Macquarie Estuary & Coastal Management CommitteePART B Projects approved (Q 4)ProjectIDProjNo.Project TitleApprovedd $DeterminedProgramEnvironment Australia00008445LM014997Redhead Beach Dune Revegetation and Construction of Board Walk$34,70031/10/97BushcareDepartment of Primary Industries and Energy00011755LM114897Design and Implement Stabilisation Works, Salts Bay Swansea$20,50016/02/98Fisheries Action5216(Question No. 2913)29135216Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) Which contractors perform gate and perimeter security work at Department of Defence facilities.(2) Do the contracts under which the work referred to in part (1) is performed contain a provision preventing subcontracting and pyramid subcontracting.(3) Do security contractors engaged by his Department comply with relevant security licensing legislation.(4) What steps does his Department take to ensure that persons employed by companies contracted to perform security work receive all their award and statutory entitlements. (5) Is J.M. Fordyce trading as James Fordyce Security contracted to perform security work at Spectacle Island; if so, (a) what security responsibilities are involved, (b) what security clearance do James Fordyce Security personnel possess, (c) what is the business address of James Fordyce Security, (d) what is the method of payment under the contract and (e) to what address does his Department send payments.5216McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The contractors who perform gate and perimeter security work at Department of Defence facilities are listed below on a regional basis.(a) ACT & Southern NSW—Group 4 Securitas Pty. Ltd.; Chubb Protective Services (A Division of Chubb Security; Australia Pty. Ltd.). (b) Central & Northern NSW—Serco Gardener Merchant Pty. Ltd..(c) North Queensland—Chubb Electronic Security Systems (A Division of Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.)(d) Northern Territory & Kimberley—Northern Guards; Chubb Electronic Security Systems (A Division of Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.); Chubb Protective Services (A Division of Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.).(3) Riverina & Murray Valley—Tenix Defence Systems Pty. Ltd.(f) South Australia—Chubb Protective Services (A Division of Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.); Workforce Security.(g) South Queensland—Midpoint Security Pty. Ltd.; Group 4 Securitas Pty. Ltd.(h) Southern Victoria—Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.; Dales Security Pty. Ltd.; Probe Group Security Pty. Ltd.(i) Sydney Central—Aardvark Security Services Pty. Ltd.; Casaja Pty. Ltd. trading as Mid State Security Network; Group 4 Securitas Pty.; SHRM (Aust) Pty. Ltd.; Chubb Electronic Security Systems (A Division of Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.).(j) Sydney West/South—K.G. Facility Manning Pty. Ltd. trading as Kilpatrick Green; SHRM (Aust) Pty. Ltd.; Vale West Pty. Ltd.; Casaja Pty. Ltd. trading as Mid State Security Network; Spotless Service Aust. Ltd.(k) Tasmania—Chubb Protective Services (A Division of Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.); Pelham Security Pty. Ltd.(l) Western Australia—Chubb Protective Services (A Division of Chubb Security Australia Pty. Ltd.); Icarus Security Geraldton; Baxendale Securities Pty. Ltd.; Pindan Security; Capricorn Security Services; WA Watching Company; Hartland Nominees Pty. Ltd. trading as Ashdon Patrol Service.(2) Apart from the contracts between the Commonwealth and Vale West Pty. Ltd. trading as ACS and the Commonwealth and Casaja Pty. Ltd. trading as Mid State Security within the Sydney West/South Region, which contain provisions preventing subcontracting, none of the contracts contain a provision preventing subcontracting or pyramid subcontracting. The remaining contracts do, however, contain clauses which provide that the contractor must not subcontract any of the security services without the prior approval of the Commonwealth.(3) To the best of the Department's knowledge, all current security contractors comply with relevant security licensing legislation. (4) To the best of the Department's knowledge, all parties in contractual arrangements with the Commonwealth for the provision of security services comply with the provisions of applicable legislative requirements, awards and workplace arrangements.In addition to the general requirement for contractors to comply with Commonwealth policies, and the contractual provision requiring the contractor to comply with all State and Commonwealth laws, most contracts also contain a specific provision requiring the contractor to comply with all decisions, awards and determinations, or any relevant industrial agreement relating to wages, conditions and entitlements of personnel and/or to the resolution of industrial disputes made by any competent court, board, commission or other industrial authority.Also, the Department's source selection process includes an assessment of the industrial relations record and employee relationship competence of all tenderers. However, once a viable tender is in place, the Department does not normally monitor a contractor's employment practices.(5) (a) to (e) J.M. Fordyce is not contracted by Defence to perform security work at Spectacle Island. The contract for the provision of these services is between the Commonwealth and Aardvark Security Services Pty. Ltd.5217(Question No. 2914)29145217Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:For each CES office that closed on 1 May 1998, (a) what was the address, (b) what was the occupied space, and (c) were the premises leased; if so, what was the unexpired term of the lease at 1 May 1998.5217Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The information requested is provided in the attached schedule. The honourable member should be aware that in a number of the leased premises where CES functions were previously undertaken, the Department continues to provide on-going functions such as Indigenous Education and functions relating to new Labour Market arrangements. In addition, a significant number of these leases have expired or have been sublet to other tenants. StateNameAddressLettable Space m2Unexpired term of leaseNSWArmidaleCnr Beardy and Dangar Sts6671 year, 6 monthNSWAuburn44-50 Auburn Rd1,0701 monthNSWBallina45 River St3901 monthNSWBankstownLevel 1, 27 Greenfield Pde1,2181 monthNSWBatemans Bay19 Beach Rd5933 year, 1 monthNSWBathurst154 Russell St6895 monthNSWBega45—61 Church St5004 year, 1 monthNSWBelconnen11-17 Swanson Plaza4401 monthNSWBlacktown125 Main St1,2201 monthNSWBondi100 Ebley St1,1041 monthNSWBourke16 Richard St2003 year, 9 monthNSWBowralSpringetts Arcade, 302-306 Bong Bong St2271 monthNSWBroken Hill32 Chloride St405Monthly LeaseNSWBrookvale469 Pittwater St7501 monthNSWBurwood195A Burwood Rd9541 monthNSWCabramattaLevel 1, 251-257 Cabramatta Rd1,2108 year, 7 monthNSWCamden16-22 Murray St4554 year, 3 monthNSWCampbelltown101 Queen St1,2681 monthNSWCampsie59-63 Evaline St8001 monthNSWCardiff42-46 Harrison St5011 monthNSWCasino154 Canterbury St3561 monthNSWCastle HillSuite 9, 10-12 Old Castle Hill Rd3851 monthNSWCessnock7 Cumberland St7134 year, 2 monthNSWChatswood70 Archer St8221 monthNSWCanberraGrd Floor 16 Mort St,4329 year, 10 monthNSWCharlestownLevel 1, 29 Smith St1,3271 year, 3 monthNSWCoffs HarbourCnr Duke & Coff sts,8903 year, 5 monthNSWCooma57-59 Massie St2551 monthNSWCorrimal100 Railway St7212 year, 2 monthNSWCowra39-41 Kendal St3591 monthNSWDapto1st Floor, 2 Bong Bong Rd5361 monthNSWDubboCnr Wingewarra and Macquarie Sts769Monthly LeaseNSWEttalong241 Ocean View Rd7004 year, 9 monthNSWFairfield7 William St8601 monthNSWGosford123 Donnison St1,2011 monthNSWGoulburn23-25 Montague St4766 monthNSWGrafton18 King St4313 monthNSWGriffith69 Yambil St581Monthly LeaseNSWGunnedah246 Conadilly St2801 monthNSWHamiltonLvl 1, 24 Beaumont St4153 year, 4 monthNSWHaymarketThird Floor, 695-699 George St1,2406 monthNSWHornsby16-20 Edgeworth David Ave5961 monthNSWHurstville5-7 Railway Pde8201 monthNSWIngleburnShop 4, Ingleburn Fair, Macquaire Rd5471 monthNSWInverell13-15 Byron St3503 year, 3 monthNSWKatoomba77 Parke St4095 monthNSWKempsey59 Smith St7921 year, 4 monthNSWKiamaKiama View Ctr, Terralong St1551 month NSWLakembaCnr Croydon and Lakemba Sts8006 year, 8 monthNSWLeeton40 Wade Ave316Centrelink OfficeNSWLeichhardtLevel 1, 23 Balmain Rd1,2007 year, 6 monthNSWLismoreConway Crt, Conway St9008 monthNSWLithgow201 Main St5271 monthNSWLiverpool24—36 Scott Street8692 monthNSWMaitland314 High St6992 year, 7 monthNSWMaroubraLevel 1, 806 Anzac Pde7991 monthNSWMarrickville334 Illawarra Rd1,0305 year, 9 monthNSWMascot842 Botany Rd5121 monthNSWMayfield117 Maitland Rd5211 monthNSWMerrylands244 Pitt St6501 monthNSWMoree13 Auburn St4952 year, 11 monthNSWMount Druitt10 North Pde8913 year, 3 monthNSWMudgeeUnit 7 Town Hall Arcade 79 Market St2891 monthNSWMurwillumbahCnr Wharf St & Commercial Rd3751 monthNSWMuswellbrookLevel 1, 160 Bridge St3762 year, 1 monthNSWNambucca Heads13 Bowra St4002 year, 11 monthNSWNarrabri73 Maitland St3251 year, 1 monthNSWNelson Bay31 Stockton St140ExpiredNSWNewcastleCnr King and Darby Sts7861 monthNSWNewtown93-99 King St8607 monthNSWNowraCnr Graham and McGrath Sts6612 year, 0 monthNSWOrange189 Anson St7383 year, 3 monthNSWParkes206-208 Clarinda St3641 year, 5 monthNSWParramatta2-12 Macquarie St8051 monthNSWPenrith109 Henry St1,0071 monthNSWPort Macquarie143 Horton St5001 monthNSWQueanbeyan34 Lowe St3681 monthNSWRockdale21-25 King St5951 monthNSWRyde89 Blaxland Rd1,0843 year, 8 monthNSWShellharbourShellharbour Sq, Lake Entrance Rd7371 monthNSWSingleton145 John St1921 monthNSWSt Marys47-49 Phillip St1,2194 year, 1 monthNSWSutherland3-5 Stapleton Ave6041 monthNSWSydney CBD345 George St1,3532 year, 6 monthNSWTamworth474 Peel St6041 monthNSWTaree5 Macquarie St6504 year, 0 monthNSWThe EntranceCnr Fairview and Torrens Sts5004 year, 0 monthNSWToronto2-6 Donnelly Ave6005 year, 5 monthNSWTuggeranong191-203 Anketell St1091 monthNSWUlladulla270 Green St2005 year, 2 monthNSWWaggaThompson St662Monthly LeaseNSWWalgettCnr Fox and Wee Waa St180Monthly LeaseNSWWallsendCnr Nelson and Boscawan St7163 year, 0 monthNSWWarrawongUpper Level, Westfield Shop Cnt Cowper St5001 monthNSWWentworthville86 Station St6274 year, 3 monthNSWWindsorGround Floor, 7 Baker St4651 month NSWWodenBonner House, 7 Neptune St4191 monthNSWWollongongGround Floor, 43 Burelli St6001 monthNSWWollongongLevel 2, 43 Burelli St5791 monthNSWWyongCnr Allison Rd & Margaret St,9432 year, 5 monthNSWYoung145 Boorowa St2182 year, 11 monthNTAlice SpringsJock Nelson Centre, Cnr Hartley Parsons St1,028Monthly LeaseNTBorroloolaGovernment Centre, Borroloola18ExpiredNTCasuarinaCASCOM Bldg, 15 Scaturchio St1,0821 year, 10 monthNTDarwinGrd Floor, Pella House, 40 Cavenagh St9281 year, 11 monthNTKatherine18 Katherine Terrace8041 year, 10 monthNTNhulunbuyEndeavour Sq292Monthly LeaseNTPalmerston2 Maluka St6008 year, 7 monthNTTennant Creek1-9 Patterson St428Monthly LeaseQLDAitkenvale313—315 Ross River Rd9613 year, 0 monthQLDAtherton29 Mabel St4081 monthQLDAyr100 Macmillan St385ExpiredQLDBeenleigh100 George St5073 monthQLDBrowns Plains109 Browns Plains Rd7032 monthQLDBundaberg62-66 Woondooma St1,4461 monthQLDCaboolture3-5 James St6501 monthQLDCairnsCairns Commonwealth Centre, 107 Lake St1,292Monthly LeaseQLDCaloundra54 Canberra Terrace9008 year, 11 monthQLDCapalaba27 Mt Cotton Rd8021 year, 5 monthQLDCharleville32 Wills St2081 monthQLDChermside18 Banfield St6021 year, 5 monthQLDDalbyCnr Archibald and Condamine Sts3552 year, 4 monthQLDEmeraldCnr Hospital Rd and Brief St3901 monthQLDFortitude ValleyCnr Wickham & Gotha Sts7541 monthQLDGladstone164-170 Goondoon St3755 monthQLDGoodna18-20 Smiths Rd7531 year, 8 monthQLDGympie27 O'Connell St9007 year, 0 monthQLDHervey Bay28 Torquay Rd5001 year, 11 monthQLDInala20 Wirraway Pde, Commonwealth Ctr8991 monthQLDIndooroopilly17 Station Rd5551 monthQLDInghamHigh Park Shopping Centre, 72 Herbert St1682 year, 7 monthQLDInnisfail42-44 Ernest St3522 monthQLDIpswichHayden Commonwealth Centre Corner East and South Sts8481 monthQLDLongreach122 Eagle St2021 monthQLDMackay55 Gordon St4601 monthQLDMaroochydore19-21 George St7109 monthQLDMaryborough89-91 Adelaide St8001 monthQLDMermaid BeachPacific Square, 2532 Gold Coast Highway4443 year, 9 monthQLDMitchelton87 Osborne Rd6502 year, 6 monthQLDMoorooka210-212 Beaudesert Rd7502 year, 2 monthQLDMount Gravatt96 Mt Gravatt—Capalaba Rd7 monthQLDMount IsaMt Isa House, 21-27 Mary St7563 year, 5 monthQLDNerang16-18 White St6507 monthQLDNoosa97 Noosa Drv6001 year, 8 month QLDNundah23 Station St7771 year, 6 monthQLDPalm Beach1051 Gold Coast Hwy8009 monthQLDRedcliffe99 Sutton St5301 monthQLDRockhamptonCnr Fitzroy and East Sts933Monthly LeaseQLDSouthport72 Nerang St1,7175 year, 3 monthQLDStanthorpe8 Roger St731 monthQLDStones Corner295 Logan Rd9001 monthQLDStrathpine446 Gympie Rd4971 monthQLDThursday IslandCnr Victoria Pde and Hastings St140Monthly LeaseQLDToowoombaCondamine Centre, Bell St Mall7509 monthQLDTownsvilleCnr Walker and Stanley Sts1,502Monthly LeaseQLDTweed Heads98—100 Blundell Boulevarde7501 year, 11 monthQLDWarwick37 Albion St350Centrelink OfficeQLDWhitsunday224 Shute Harbour Rd6001 year, 7 monthQLDWoodridge6 Ewing Rd841Monthly LeaseQLDWynnum212 Bay Terrace54711 monthSAAdelaideGrnd Flr, 55 Currie St4722 monthSABerri3 Riverview Dv4161 monthSACedunaCnr Merghiny and East Terrace177Monthly LeaseSAClareUnit 3, Lot 1 Gleeson St841 monthSACoober Pedy Hutchinson St, Lot 715176Centrelink OfficeSAEdwardstown913 South Rd6593 monthSAElizabeth28 Phillip Highway5569 monthSAEnfield219 Main North Rd8361 monthSAGawlerShop 12, Cnr Murray and Cowan Sts4761 year, 10 monthSAGlenelg12 Durham St4521 monthSAKadina22—24 Taylor St0Centrelink OfficeSAMarionL3, Westfield Tower, 297 Diagonal Rd8761 monthSAModbury108-110 Reservoir Rd7232 year, 4 monthSAMount BarkerUnit 2, 11 Cameron St197Centrelink OfficeSAMount Gambier64 Commercial St West4701 monthSAMurray Bridge8 Bridge St3781 monthSANaracoorte44b Robertson St891 monthSANoarlungaCommonwealth Offices, Ramsay Walk Noarlunga Centre6971 monthSANorwood201 The Pde5051 monthSAParksideSuite 2, 257 Fullarton Rd6054 monthSAPort Adelaide70 Dale St6464 year, 3 monthSAPort Augusta99 Commercial Rd790Monthly LeaseSAPort Lincoln85-89 Tasman Terrace2741 monthSAPort Pirie60 Florence St4281 monthSASalisbury20 Gawler St1,0007 year, 3 monthSAVictor HarborCentral Shopping Centre, Torrens St1031 monthSAWhyalla169 Nicholson Ave6656 monthSAWoodville451-453 Torrens Rd6994 monthTASBridgewater24 Green Point Rd2513 year, 5 monthTASBurnie49 Catley St8971 monthTASDevonport35 Oldaker St5921 monthTASEastern Shore1 Bligh St5201 month TASGlenorchyCnr 372 Main Rd & Terry St1,2108 year, 10 monthTASHobart175 Collins St9141 monthTASHuonville40A Main Rd2241 monthTASLaunceston102-104 Cameron St1,5254 year, 11 monthVICAlbury564 Olive St9901 monthVICArarat70 High St4621 monthVICBairnsdale101-119 Nicholson St5511 year, 8 monthVICBallaratCnr Albert and Dana Sts1,3005 year, 3 monthVICBenalla52 Carrier St4071 year, 5 monthVICBendigoCnr Myers and Mundy Sts1,3004 year, 3 monthVICBoronia252 Dorset Rd4771 monthVICBox Hill26-28 Prospect St1,7071 year, 6 monthVICBrunswick175 Sydney Rd6531 monthVICCamberwell979 Burke Rd5821 monthVICCaulfield1227 Glenhuntly Rd8694 year, 8 monthVICCheltenham1251 Nepean Hwy5781 monthVICCoburg347-365 Sydney Rd5491 monthVICColac61 Gellibrand St1806 year, 2 monthVICCollingwood160 Smith St8001 year, 3 monthVICCorio1st Floor Corio Village—Bacchus Marsh Rd3751 year, 10 monthVICCranbourne7-9 Bakewell St5553 year, 11 monthVICDandenong237 Londsdale St1,6055 year, 1 monthVICDeniliquinShop 6 Cressy Arcade, 344 Cressy St215ExpiredVICEchuca217 Pakenham St3121 monthVICEpping763 High St1,2007 year, 9 monthVICFootscray37-39 Albert St1,5605 year, 11 monthVICFountain Gate42 Magid Drive0Centrelink OfficeVICFrankston20 Davey St8341 monthVICGeelong129-133 Myers St1,8202 year, 4 monthVICGlenroy196 Glenroy Rd7141 monthVICGreensborough9-13 Flintoff St8816 year, 2 monthVICHamilton232 Gray St1301 monthVICHeidelberg460 Lower Heidleberg Rd1,0503 year, 11 monthVICHorsham9 Darlot St3008 year, 0 monthVICKerang69 Wellington St1541 monthVICKnoxBldg 2, Capital City Blvd1,4434 year, 6 monthVICLilydaleCorner Anderson and Chapel Sts7047 year, 0 monthVICMaryborough82 Alma St3421 year, 6 monthVICMelbourne CBDLevel 6/7 172-179 Flinders St1,432Monthly LeaseVICMelton415 High St4771 year, 9 monthVICMildura87 Langtree Ave820Monthly LeaseVICMoe31-33 Kirk St2901 monthVICMoonee Ponds710 Mt Alexander Rd9181 monthVICMoorabbinCnr Taylor and Central Ave6571 monthVICMornington331 Main St3671 monthVICMorwell65 Elgin St9502 year, 9 monthVICNewport445 Melbourne Rd3291 monthVICNiddrie312 Keilor Rd476Expired VICNorthcote279 High St7761 monthVICOakleigh20-22 Atherton Rd7751 monthVICPortland36 Gawler St3021 monthVICPrahran1st Floor, 233 Chapel St8511 monthVICPreston293 High St1,8475 year, 5 monthVICRichmond1st Floor, 224 Church St7721 monthVICRingwood88 Maroondah Hwy1,1621 monthVICRosebud12-16 Ninth Ave3261 monthVICSale150 York St4507 year, 6 monthVICSeymour67 Anzac Ave2005 monthVICShepparton383—391 Wyndham St9173 year, 5 monthVICSpringvale383—385 Springvale Rd9541 monthVICSt Albans1/7 Elaine St5181 monthVICSt KildaCorner Shakespeare Grove and Chaucer St1,2008 year, 3 monthVICStawell54 Main St2461 monthVICSunbury22 O'Shanassy St4243 year, 11 monthVICSunshineDixon St7611 monthVICSwan Hill16 McCallum St1501 monthVICTraralgonCnr Church and Hotham Sts2891 monthVICWangaratta17 Ely St6605 year, 10 monthVICWarragul30 Queen St1121 year, 11 monthVICWarrnambool129 Timor St4004 year, 4 monthVICWerribeeStation Arcade, 13 Station St7461 monthVICWodonga19 Stanley St5503 year, 2 monthWAAlbany261—265 York St6051 year, 1 monthWAArmadale40 Commerce Ave5882 monthWABroomeCnr Napier Terrace and Weld St759Monthly LeaseWABunburySpencer and Stirling Sts6121 monthWACanningtonCnr Cecil Ave and Sevenoaks St8802 year, 0 monthWACarnarvon34 Stuart St1262 year, 10 monthWACollie51 Forrest Road146Centrelink OfficeWACockburnCnr Rockingham Rd and Lancaster St2651 monthWADerbyClarendon House Cnr Clarendon & Hardman Sts131Monthly LeaseWAEsperanceUnit 2 Cnr Dempster and Hicks Sts2381 monthWAFremantleShop 27, 35 William St6591 monthWAGeraldton73-77 Marine Terrace4821 monthWAInnaloo384 Scarborough Beach Rd4082 monthWAJoondalup65 Boas Ave7284 year, 8 monthWAKalgoorlieCnr Porter and Brookman Sts4861 monthWAKarrathaKarratha City Shopping Centre, Welcome Rd3881 monthWAKununurraCommonwealth Offices, Konkerberry Dv3441 monthWAKwinanaKwinana Commercial Centre, Meares Ave2250 monthWAMaddington4 Binley Place4931 monthWAMandurahCnr Tuckey and Sutton Sts5006 monthWAMidlandCnr Sayer St and The Crescent1,2003 year, 10 monthWAMirrabooka6 Ilkeston Place4651 monthWAMorley6 Dewar St6541 monthWANortham89 Fitzgerald St844 year, 3 month WAPerth223 James St8001 year, 1 monthWAPerth CVSLevel 13 QV1 Building 250 St Georges Tce6504 year, 10 monthWARockingham8 Leghorn St7099 monthWASouth HedlandCnr Brand and Tonkin Sts4771 monthWAVictoria Park350 Albany Highway6531 year, 0 month5224(Question No. 2925)29255224Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Treasurer, 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.5224Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No recurrent funding or grants have been made specifically for the electoral division of Oxley by my department or any agency within my portfolio during 1996-97 and 1997-98, and no recurrent funding or grants is planned for 1998-99. Funding not identified by regions may have been received indirectly.5224(Question No. 2945)29455224Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) Further to his media announcement of 14 April 1998 about the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme for 1997-98, (a) what were the skills of each migrant granted a visa, (b) where were they employed by (i) State, (ii) Australian Bureau of Statistics Region and (iii) local government area and (c) which company employed each migrant.(2) Are employers who participate in the scheme required to show that a resident of Australia with the required skills cannot be recruited.(3) Is an employer who is granted permission to bring a skilled migrant into Australia required to train an unemployed Australian to fill the job in future.(4) Does the Government examine a sponsoring company's historical commitment to training Australians before approving the bringing in of a skilled migrant. (5) Are skilled migrants granted short-term visas when the requirement for their skills may be for a short duration.(6) Are all the skilled migrants covered by the scheme in (a) 1997-98 and (b) the eight months to February 1998 still employed by the sponsoring company.(7) Is there a penalty on either the skilled migrant or the sponsoring company if the former is not employed by the latter (a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) one month, (d) two months, (e) six months, (f) twelve months or (g) two years after arrival in Australia.5224Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) to (c) The 14 April 1998 media release referred to 314 visas granted under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) in the eight months to the end of February 1998. This figure comprised of 101 principal applicants with the remaining number being accompanying family members. Details of the principal applicant's skills, location and employer are set out in the table below.(2) The RSMS is reliant on approved regional bodies to certify a range of matters including that the nominated position is a genuine full-time vacancy and that it cannot be filled from the local labour market. This process requires that employers demonstrate that they are unable to fill the vacancy.(3) There is no legislative requirement for participating employers to train unemployed Australians. It is expected that employment opportunities will be generated in regional and rural Australia as a result of RSMS sponsorship. The skilled worker is often not only essential to expanding business but in maintaining the viability of an existing business.(4) The majority of sponsoring employers demonstrate that they have been unable to fill the skilled vacancy despite sustained and often prolonged recruitment and training efforts. While employers prefer to recruit and train locally, the unique requirements and location of many positions have resulted in recruitment and training difficulties. (5) Employers under the RSMS are seeking to fill permanent long-term vacancies. The program is employer driven with employers having the option of sponsoring temporary residents where that meets the requirements of the business.(6) No data is collected on the movements of permanent residents entering under the RSMS. Feedback from regional certifying bodies and employers indicate that the RSMS is working well. Indications are that the vast majority of sponsored workers are honouring the minimum two year contract required under the RSMS.(7) (a) to (g) There are no immigration sanctions as sponsored workers are permanent residents. Importantly, the requirement for a minimum two year contract provides both parties with industrial relations and common law remedies should either party be aggrieved within the contracted period of employment.South AustraliaPhilip Lim Pty LtdExport Marketing ManagerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)PPK Environment SAEnvironmental ScientistEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Motorola AustraliaSoftware EngineerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Galligans Mattress Factory, MagillMattress MakerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Hackney Dental LaboratoryDental TechnicianEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Turnbull Fox PhillipsData Processing ManagerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Benairn P/LRadiographerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Aldom Motorbody BuildingMotor Body BuilderEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Aust Aviation College Flight InstructorNorthern AdelaideSalisburyShark Pod AustraliaGeneral ManagerNorthern AdelaideTea Tree GullyMichael Webber DesignsLandscape ArchitectSouthern AdelaideHappy ValleySE RefrigerationService TechnicianSouthern & Eastern SANaracoorteAllshapes SheetmetalFirst Class WelderWestern AdelaideHindmarshClark ShoesMechanical EngineerNorthern & Western SAClareGerard IndustriesResearch EngineerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Wayward Bus TouringDiesel MechanicEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Carrier Air Conditioning Refrigeration MechanicEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Carrier Air Conditioning Refrigeration MechanicEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Adelaide Prestige EconomistEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Machine Doctors Pty LtdMill WrightWestern AdelaideHindmarsh & Woodville Leane ElectricalElectricianEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Kinhill Pty LtdEngineerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Port Pirie Chiro CentreChiropractorNorthern & Western SAPort PiriePanes Pin Bush Pty LtdTechnical OfficerNorthern AdelaideSalisburyR F WaltersManagerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Kinhill EngineersSenior EngineerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Tatiara TrucksDeisel MechanicSouthern & Eastern SANaracoorteLeane ElectricalElectricianEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)In Loo PlumbingPlumberNorthern AdelaideElizabethSpeakman StillwellSenior ConsultantEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Flinders UniversityResearch AssociateEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Flinders UniversityLevel A Research—AcademicEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Ad Mercury LtdEngineering ManufacturerEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Concept SystemsSystems AdministratorEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Professional People Pty LtdProject ManagerSouthern AdelaideGlenelgProfessional People Pty Ltd Computer ProgrammerSouthern AdelaideGlenelgHardy's BRLWinemakerSouthern AdelaideHappy ValleyHansons Centre for CancerLab TechnicianEastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Australian Broadcasting CommissionPrincipal Harp(Adelaide Symphony Orchestra) Eastern AdelaideAdelaide (C)Western AustraliaSurton TechnologiesSupervising Surveyor/LoggerRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderHahn Electrical ContractingElectrical/Hydraulic FitterRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderExploration & Mining Consultants Pty LtdGeologistRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderGrimwood Davies Pty LtdDiesel MechanicRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderAllwest Recruitment ServicesBoilermaker/WelderBalance of WA—Lower Western WABunburyRoly Industries Pty LtdBoilermaker/WelderRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderDelta Gold N.L.Exploration GeologistRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderKatanning Health ServiceRegistered NurseBalance of WA—Lower Western WAKatanningKatanning Health ServiceRegistered NurseBalance of WA—Lower Western WAKatanning WMC Resources Mechanical EngineerRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderPhillbourne ManufacturingFitter MachinistRemainder—Balance WANorthamGeographe EnterprisesMachine Tool FitterBalance of WA—Lower Western WABunburyGeographe EnterprisesTool FitterBalance of WA—Lower Western WABunburyWestralian Hard ChromeFitterRemainder—Balance WAKalgoorlie/BoulderPeel Health ServicesSpeech PathologistBalance of WA—Lower Western WABunburyQueenslandCairns International HotelDemi ChefFar NorthCairnsCairns International Hotel Guest Liaison SupervisorFar NorthCairnsCoconut Beach Rainforest Resort Office ManagerFar NorthCairnsTownsville General HospitalRegistered NurseNorthern—North WestTownsvilleMt Isa MinesRock Mechanic EngineerNorth WestMt IsaMt Isa MinesPrincipal Mechanical EngineerNorth WestMt IsaTescorp Pty LtdHydraulic Service TechnicianFar NorthCairnsSun Metals CorpQuality ManagerNorthern—North WestTownsvilleSwiss FarmsWorkshop Manager (Fitter)Far NorthCairnsMoranbah Electronic Repairs Service and Repair TechnicianMcKay-Fitzroy-Central WestMcDonald Printing GroupGraphic ReproducerDarling Downs—South WestToowoombaBreastscreen, TownsvilleRadiographerNorthern—North WestTownsvilleSouth Burnett Health Occupation TherapistWide Bay-BurnettKingaroyMckay Intergrated Mental Health ServiceSenior Mental Health ClinicianMackay-Fitzroy-Central WestMackayTownsville District Health Service Occupational TherapistNorthern—North WestTownsvilleSt Johns Catholic SchoolSecondary TeacherWide Bay-BurnettMurgonMt Isa MinesMechanical EngineerNorth WestMt IsaNorthern TerritoryUnited Bulk Transfer Systems Pty LtdExecutive ChairmanDarwinWinnellieGibb and BeemanOptometristDarwinDarwin (C)Diamond Offshore DrillingSafety Case ManagerDarwinDarwinAlice Springs Health ServiceRegistered NurseBalance Northern TerritoryAlice SpringsAlice Springs Health ServiceRegistered NurseBalance Northern TerritoryAlice SpringsAlice Springs Health ServiceRegistered NurseBalance Northern TerritoryAlice SpringsSt Mary's Family ServicesDisability Support WorkerBalance Northern TerritoryAlice SpringsCameco Aust. Pty. Ltd.Manager ExplorationDarwinWinnellieBP CasuarinaMotor MechanicDarwinDarwin (C)Powercorp Pty LtdSoftware EngineerDarwinDarwin (C)St Philips College Registered NurseBalance Northern TerritoryAlice SpringsMenzies School of Health RschStatisticianDarwinDarwin (C)Alice Springs Health ServiceRegistered NurseBalance Northern TerritoryAlice SpringsAlice Springs Health ServiceRegistered NurseBalance Northern TerritoryAlice SpringsTASMANIAMing Court RestaurantDemi ChefGreater Hobart-SouthernHobart (C)Global Lighting TechnologiesBusiness Development ManagerGreater Hobart-SouthernHobart (C)Sheridan Australia Assistant Printing ManagerGreater Hobart—SouthernGlenorchyCalvary HospitalRegistered Nurse, Critical Care UnitGreater Hobart-SouthernHobart (C)Calvary HospitalRegistered Nurse, Critical Care UnitGreater Hobart-SouthernHobart (C)Calvary HospitalRegistered Nurse, Critical Care UnitGreater Hobart-SouthernHobart (C)Shaun's TV ServiceSenior Electronics TechnicianMersey-LeyellDevonportNew South WalesSafari Motors Pty Ltd Motor MechanicMurray-MurrumbidgeeNarranderaAcheson's Rural ServicesTechnical Field PersonMurray—MurrumbidgeeGriffithMacquarie Area Health ServiceGeneral Practioner & visiting Medical OfficerFar West-North WesternDubboKooringle Apex Nursing HomeRegistered NurseFar West-North WesternDubboAustralian Capital Territory Itoham Foods Australia Pty. Ltd.General ManagerACTSouth CanberraSmall and CarpenterFinancial Planning AdviserACTCanberraImpressionists Hair SalonSenior Salon Coordinator/HairdresserACTSouth CanberraNursing Service Agency Pty LtdNurseACTWoden ValleyVictoriaRiverland Oilseed, MelbourneWorks/Plant ManagerGoulburn-Ovens-MurrayShepparton5227(Question No. 2968)29685227Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:Is he able to say what sum (a) Hudson Conway, (b) the Crown Casino, (c) Mr Ron Walker and (d) Mr Lloyd Williams donated to the (i) Liberal Party and (ii) National Party of Australia or (iii) associated fund-raising organisations (A) The 500 Club, (B) Cormack Foundation Pty Ltd and (C) Free Enterprise Foundation in each year since 1991.5227Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The following information has been provided to me by the Australian Electoral Commission from the publicly available financial disclosure returns lodged with it by registered political parties, associated entities and donors to political parties.I am unable to provide any figures for donations made to the Liberal or National Parties in 1991 as detailed, annual financial disclosures were only introduced for the 1992/93 financial year. Similarly, associated entities such as The 500 Club, Cormack Foundation Pty Ltd and Free Enterprise Foundation have only been required to submit annual disclosures since the 1995/96 financial year.Hudson Conway made a donation of $10,000 to the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party in the 1994/95 financial year and another donation of $10,000 to the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party in the 1995/96 financial year.Crown Casino made a donation of $10,000 to the Victorian Division of the Liberal Party in the 1995/96 financial year.No other donations have been disclosed as having been made to the nominated recipients since 1991 by Hudson Conway, Crown Casino, Mr Ron Walker or Mr Lloyd Williams.5227(Question No. 2972)29725227Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) What (a) is the period of the contract for, and (b) are the details of the remuneration package of, the managing director of Employment National.(2) How does the contract compare with that for the Secretary of his Department.(3) What is the period of appointment of the Board of Employment National.(4) Who appoints members of the Board.(5) What types of fees or other allowances, including travelling allowances, are paid to Board members.5227Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Details of the remuneration packages of Employment National executives will be reported in the company's Annual Report in accordance with normal reporting practice. However, for your information, a similar question was asked at the Senate Legislation Committee 1997-98 Additional Estimates Supplementary Hearing, Question on Notice 859. This answer, which is reproduced below, provides details of the remuneration packages for the managing director, Company Secretary and Legal Counsel, General Manager, Operations and other senior executives within the organisation, as follows:Salary Package Band ($)No of Positions100,000—150,00014151,000—200,0003201,000—300,0001(2) The salary for each Agency Head is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal and is promulgated annually in its Reports and Decisions publication. The current rate determined for the Secretary of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs is $142,130 per annum.Agency Heads are also entitled to a private plated vehicle for a nominal fee and suitable free parking arrangements. Employer-sponsored superannuation and assistance with telephone costs are standard entitlements, while spouse-accompanied travel domestically and overseas may be approved by the relevant Minister.Agency Heads have the option of being appointed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 37 of the Public Service Act 1922. These provisions allow, inter alia, for the payment of Loss of Tenure Allowance. This allowance amounts to an additional 20 per cent of annual salary each year and is paid on a fortnightly basis in conjunction with the standard salary payment.(3) The period of appointment of Board members has been staggered to ensure a continuation of corporate knowledge within the Board of Employment National. The terms for current Board members are as follows:NamePositionTermMr Don SwanChairman3 yearsMr Peter StoreyManaging Directorfor term not exceeding five yearsMr Greg HarveyDirector3 yearsDr Denise FlemingDirector3 yearsMr Harvey ParkerDirector2 yearsMr Andrew KirkDirector2 years(4) In accordance with the company's Articles of Association and the Governance Arrangements for Commonwealth Government Business Enterprises the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs acting jointly with the Minister for Finance and Administration may appoint a person to be a director of the company, either to fill a vacancy (whether casual or otherwise) or in addition to existing directors.(5) The remuneration of directors is set in accordance with any applicable determination of the Remuneration Tribunal under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. The Remuneration Tribunal in Determination Number 1 of 25 March 1997 determined remuneration arrangements as follows for Employment National directors:Part-time Chairman Fee: $60,000 per annumTravelling Allowance: Capital:$320 per night; Other $165 per nightPart-time Director Fee: $25,000 per annumTravelling Allowance: Capital:$320 per night; Other $165 per nightThe managing director is paid such remuneration as the directors determine from time to time in accordance with any applicable determination of the Remuneration Tribunal under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. 5228(Question No. 3009)30095228Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1998:(1) Did analysis by the Committee of Inquiry into the Temporary Entry of Business People and Highly Skilled Specialists indicate the potential for temporary skills transfer through possible offshore sponsorship by multinational corporations.(2) Has there been a pronounced growth in the issue of onshore category 457 visas; if so, why.(3) What statistical material does his Department collate concerning category 457 visas.(4) How many visitors to Australia had work rights at 30 April 1998.(5) How many employers were (a) granted rights and (b) rejected as category 457 sponsors (i) in 1997 and (ii) between 1 January and 30 April 1998.(6) What were the predominant industry categories associated with seeking onshore changes to 457 long stay status.5228Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) In its report presented to the Government in August 1995, the Committee of Inquiry into the Temporary Entry into the Temporary Entry of Business People and Highly Skilled Specialists considered that the primary principle governing the temporary entry of key business personnel should be benefit to Australia. The benefits envisaged by the Committee included the introduction of new or improved technology or business skills in Australia.The Committee recommended streamlined processing for key business personnel for both companies operating in Australia and reputable overseas companies seeking to establish a business presence or fulfil a contract in Australia. Overseas company sponsorships must also be of benefit to Australia.(2) It is estimated that there will be 18,350 subclass 457 visas granted onshore in 1997/98, compared to 14,150 visas granted in 1996/97. The visa grant figures include approximately 40 per cent dependents.The increase in onshore visa grants is consistent with government expectations. The components of this growth include:- an underlying increase in business reliance on key personnel associated with growth in Australia's economy and international trade, and the need for business to be more internationally competitive;- greater reliance of business on the use of skilled temporary residents rather than the more traditional and less streamlined sponsorship of permanent residents;- establishment of specialised Business Units in Australia to better respond to business realities and the time-critical needs of business; and- an increased initial use of the business visitor visa (subclass 456) and a consequential increase in subsequent business long-stay visa (subclass 457) applications onshore.(3) The Department routinely collects a broad range of visa and sponsorship related data relating to subclass 457 visa grants. The data comes from a number of departmental receipting and processing systems. The key data relates to application receipting and processing, visa grants, client movement records and visa stock data. The sponsorship data includes company name and industry type and nominated occupation details.(4) The Business Visitor visa (subclass 456) is the only visitor visa that provides the holder with any form of work rights. The 456 visa is a short-stay visa (up to 3 months) which primarily provides for business people attending meetings and transacting business. It also provides for skilled specialists to work in situations where there is no adverse impact on employment and training opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents.An extract of visa stock data as at 31 March 1998 indicated there were 9,413 subclass 456 visa holders in Australia at that time.(5) In the calender year 1997 there were approximately 7,200 sponsorship approvals. Between 1 January and 30 April 1998 there were approximately 2,600 sponsorship approvals.Statistics relating to the numbers of refused business sponsorship are currently not available from Departmental systems. However, the Department's Business Centres advise that business sponsorship refusals are in the order of 5 to 10 per cent.(6) There is no readily available statistical data indicating industry categories associated with people changing to visa subclass 457 onshore. However, a table showing all approved nominations (on and offshore) by industry groupings according to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) for 1 July 1997 to 30 April 1998 is attached.Approved Nominations by Industry July 1997 to April 1998ANZSIC CODETOTALAgriculture, Forestry and Fishing251Mining1080Manufacturing1298Electricity, Gas and Water Supply158Construction297Wholesale Trade445Retail Trade312Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants643Transport and Storage312Communication Services1767 Finance and Insurance929Property and Business Services335Government Administration and Defence90Education132Health and Community Services463Cultural and Recreational Services839Personal and other Services417Total97685230(Question No. 3010)30105230Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1998:What is the estimated number of Australian veterans with operational service at the former RAAF base at Ubon, Thailand, (a) between 25 June 1965 and August 1968 and (b) before 25 June 1965 only.5230Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Not available.(b) Not available.Department of Defence sources estimated that approximately 2000 Australians served in the Ubon area between 31 May 1962 and 31 August 1968. My Department has no primary records from which it could make an estimate.5230(Question No. 3044)30445230McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 4 June 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2836 (Hansard , 2 June 1998, page 4236), what are the consequences of a resident's classification level being reduced by two levels.5230Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In cases of extended hospital leave of 30 days or more, the reduction in resident classification of two levels results in the facility receiving funding at the rate applicable to that lower level from the 31st day of hospital leave until the resident returns to the facility. On return the resident is reclassified by the facility. The latest rates table is below.BASIC SUBSIDY AMOUNTS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENTSRATE PER RESIDENT PER DAY ($)FROM 1/10/97(For residents who have been classified under the Resident Classification Scale)CategoryNationalNSWVICQLDWASATASACTNT1101.69106.6387.7498.4595.13108.1398.26103.6291.8296.279.1588.8586.0997.8288.9393.62379.9882.767.9876.3574.2684.4276.8680.48456.0358.5148.0153.9853.1460.3955.1856.96533.30627.50721.0080.00