1998-06-243817REPS523101998-06-24Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5231r5565231Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.523109:31:005231Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to make a number of amendments to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 to allow the introduction of the farm business improvement program, known as Farmbis.The government announced its intention to wind up the rural adjustment scheme in the 1997-98 budget, following the findings of the McColl report, titled Rural adjustment—managing change. The McColl committee found that RAS had reached a relatively small proportion of farmers with the exception of education and training support, its effectiveness was questionable.It also found that overall, the scheme had not had a significant positive impact on the adjustment process and had not met the goal of fostering the development of a profitable and competitive farm sector.The McColl committee recommended that future government programs to address rural adjustment should no longer use interest rate subsidies or grants to farm businesses for productivity improvement.It recommended that the government introduce new programs that offered assistance in four key areas—farmer savings, welfare, re-establishment and management skills. The coalition government has delivered already on three of these areas—savings through the farm management deposit scheme, and welfare and re-establishment under the farm family restart scheme. In relation to the fourth area, the McColl committee recommended a new program be introduced with a focus on promoting a culture of continuous learning and enhancing the capacity of farm managers to identify, acquire and apply the skills and information needed to improve the performance of their farm businesses both in terms of profitability and sustainability.Having considered the recommendations of the McColl committee's report, the government decided to create the new Farmbis program. It is, of course, one part of the comprehensive Agriculture—Advancing Australia package unveiled by the government in September last year.The four key objectives of the AAA package are:. to help individual farm businesses profit from change;. to ensure the farm sector has access to an adequate welfare safety net;. to provide positive incentives for continual farm adjustment; and. to encourage social and economic development in rural areas.As is well known, Australian agriculture accounts for around 25 per cent of the nation's exports and provides the basis for much of its value-adding food and fibre processing industries. Australia has extensive arable land, a diverse climate suited to a wide range of agricultural and horticultural pursuits, and a high level of expertise in food and fibre production. As a result, this nation is very well placed to take advantage of market opportunities as they emerge domestically and overseas.The goal of Farmbis is to help individual farm businesses take full advantage of these opportunities by building on their existing business management skills.Farmbis is a program that will encourage the ongoing development of the farm sector's culture of continuous improvement—a culture that is best evidenced by the significant annual productivity improvements achieved by our farmers over many decades. Our farmers out-rank most other—virtually all in fact—industry sectors in this regard.This new program will help farmers to take up the training and advice they consider they need in order to improve the productivity, profitability and sustainability of their businesses.Recent reviews have shown strong links between upgrading skills and the influence it has on levels of productivity, profitability and innovation. For instance, research conducted by the National Farmers Federation has confirmed that a greater investment in training will enable farmers to capture the benefits and better place farmers to maximise the opportunities arising from the changing environment in which they operate.The farming community itself has identified a need to build upon its existing culture of skills development and to increase participation by farmers in targeted learning activities. There is also a self-identified need to build on the overall business capabilities of farmers so that they can compete effectively in domestic and international markets. Farmbis will assist farmers attain a broad spectrum of business management skills including those for technical, financial, marketing and human resource management in order to meet thechallenges of the future. The objectives of Farmbis are threefold:. firstly, to increase farmer participation in learning activities which will enhance the profitability, sustainability and competitiveness of their business;. secondly, to develop greater acceptance of the benefits of continuous learning and skills development, and its relevance to the changing management needs of a competitive farm sector; and. finally, to enhance farmers' capacity to identify and access appropriate learning activities, and over time, influence more flexible delivery of such activities.Farmbis will give farmers an opportunity to identify, access and participate in the skills development activities most relevant to enhancing the performance of their businesses. This approach is consistent with rural industries moving to greater financial self- reliance and control of their own future competitiveness. It is not prescriptive.Very importantly, it will build on the excellent training that is being delivered around the nation by the property management planning campaign—a joint Commonwealth-state initiative that introduces farmers to strategic business planning at the whole farm level and is delivered through farmer workshops. PMP is an excellent program and I commend it to all farmers.Farmbis will achieve its objectives through a range of strategies:. by assisting farmers to participate in learning activities;. by coordinating flexible, responsive delivery of learning activities to farmers;. by communicating to farmers the benefits of continuous learning;. by contributing to farmers establishing a planned approach to their learning needs;. by contributing to a more integrated rural training delivery framework; and. by improving farmers' access to information on learning activities; andFarmbis will operate through partnerships with local farmer groups, industry organisations, community groups, state agencies and service providers. It will use existing networks to facilitate participation in learning activities driven by farmer and industry needs. Farmbis will not of itself be a service provider.The focus of Farmbis will be on short- and medium-term contributions to farm sector training and development activities. It is expected that, over time, some activities under Farmbis will be linked to industry competency standards to facilitate cross-industry credit transfer. Farmbis will consist of two components, a national component and a state based component. The Commonwealth will administer the national component.It is anticipated that the majority of Farmbis funds will be allocated through the state based component to fund state, industry and community agreed priorities in relation to training and education within their regional communities and the rural sector. A partnership agree ment between the Commonwealth and each state will set out the requirements for program objectives, performance, monitoring, funding and other obligations. Negotiations are currently under way in the development of these agreements.Each state will be required to undertake a consultative planning process through the establishment of a state planning group to recommend priorities, target group strategies, delivery and funding arrangements consistent with the framework set out in the partnership agreement. The program administrator in each state will be responsible for managing the program consistent with the priorities determined by the state planning group and within the framework set out in the partnership agreement.State planning groups may recommend the use of existing coordination arrangements or new program coordinators. Where program coordinators are employed, they will ensure that the learning priorities of individual farmers and/or groups of farmers can be effectively and efficiently matched with those providers who can best meet these needs. Program coordinators will act as organisers and brokers but will not themselves deliver learning activities.Farmbis will partly contribute to the costs of farmers' participation in learning activities which address the skills development needs they have identified. Support may be on an individual or on a group basis such as to a group of producers identifying a common training requirement or a learning need. Learning needs can be established at the level of an individual farmer, farm family or group of farmers. Some ways of establishing learning needs include development of a farm business plan or conducting an individual skills audit. By taking a planned approach to learning and establishing their needs, farmers would maximise their return on participation time and the benefits accruing to their business. In determining the eligibility criteria, each state planning group will match their state's own priorities against those expressed by the farmers.Training would be delivered on a competitive basis seeking the best value for money, best available provider, public or private, and promoting, over time, best practice. Participants would be expected to contribute to the cost of learning activities in which they participate under Farmbis because it is widely accepted that, where a contribution is made, there is greater commitment from participants. Consideration may also be given towards contributing to incidental costs such as travel for farmers in isolated areas. Farmbis will also provide reference tools and materials as a resource for farmers and interested persons to access information on available courses, other learning activities and providers' costs and contact numbers.The principal target group for Farmbis will be the farm management team comprising principal operator, spouse, family members, partners, staff employed in a management capacity and farm contractors whose operational support is integral to improving business management on the farm. Participants should be bona fide farmers as defined by the respective state planning groups. Each state planning group will make recommendations regarding the eligibility criteria operating in that state.Activities supported under Farmbis would focus on addressing the training needs identified by the management team including those related to financial, marketing and human resource management of the farm business. Specific types of activities that may be supported include farm business and financial planning and advice, farm performance benchmarking, leadership development, quality assurance activities, skills audits and specialised management areas such as risk management, although this is not an exhaustive list by any means of activities which could be funded under Farmbis. Other activities may also be supported if they meet the objectives of the program.The allocation of funding under Farmbis between the Commonwealth and state for the state component is 50-50. Participants would be expected to contribute to the cost of individual Farmbis activities in which they participate, although the contribution to individual activities would be flexible and recommended by the state planning group. Additional funding for Farmbis activities from corporate sponsors and other bodies will be actively encouraged.The Commonwealth is in the final stages of negotiations with each state and territory on how the Farmbis program will operate in each of those jurisdictions. Farmbis will operate for three years from the 1998-99 financial year. I commend the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Keefe) adjourned.Bills5234r5485234Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.523409:43:005234Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill amends the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992 to reflect the new agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories on vocational education and training, setting out planning, accountability and funding arrangements for the three years 1998 to 2000. By way of consequential amendments, the bill also amends the Vocational Education and Training Funding Act 1992 to incorporate into the general allocation the funding previously set aside specifically to support off-the-job training for traineeships and to supplement the amounts appropriated for 1998 and 1999 in accordance with real price movements reflected in Treasury indices. The bill also rectifies an omission made in the original Australian National Training Authority Act by making it clear that the Australian National Training Authority, ANTA, is exempt from state and territory taxes to which the Commonwealth is not subject. The new ANTA agreement reflected in the bill is founded on a recognition by both the Commonwealth and state and territory governments that vocational education and training is integral to the development of an Australian work force with the range and depth of skills necessary to increase the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry. A key feature of the new agreement is that it provides a stable basis for funding vocational education and training over the next three years.The Commonwealth will maintain funding to the states and territories in real terms over the period of the agreement, and states and territories have undertaken to achieve growth in their vocational education and training systems through efficiencies. For 1998, the states and territories collectively have planned to deliver an extra 44,000 student places. This is an excellent outcome, particularly for young Australians, who will benefit from additional vocational education and training places that will help them gain real jobs. It is also a win for taxpayers who can be assured that funds will be put to the best possible use.It is evidence of this government's commitment to the vocational education and training sector that over the next three years the Commonwealth will contribute more than $2.7 billion through the ANTA agreement, and this is in addition to around $500 million annual funding for other Commonwealth vocational education and training programs. Total Commonwealth funding for vocational education and training in 1998-99 will be $1.4 billion—an increase of $46 million over the amount provided in the 1997-98 budget, and an increase of $190 million over the amount expended in the last year of the Labor government.To ensure that the training provided will be responsive to the needs of businesses and of the economy, the new agreement fosters a leadership role for industry in the peak decision making, planning and advisory processes for vocational education and training. A key element of the new ANTA agreement is the national strategy for vocational education and training for 1998 to 2003. This strategy, which was endorsed in May this year by all the state and territory ministers for vocational education and training, expresses a new spirit of cooperation and collaboration. It is a collective commitment by all Australian governments to work in partnership with industry to make our vocational education and training sector one of the world's best.In setting out a vision for the development of the sector over the next five years, the strategy expresses a commitment to ensure that the skills of the Australian labour force are sufficient to support internationally competitive commerce and industry as we compete in an increasingly global economy and, at the same time, ensure that the kinds of training opportunities available allow individuals to optimise their potential. The government believes that Australian enterprises and citizens need, and deserve, no less.A vital element of meeting this challenge will be to ensure that the training delivered is of the highest quality. The new ANTA agreement ensures the quality of training by reinforcing the national framework for competency standards, recognition and qualifications. The new national training framework comprises two major initiatives that provide streamlined arrangements for the recognition and regulation of vocational education and training products and services.On 1 January 1998, new arrangements for the national recognition of vocational education and training came into effect. This is a major joint government initiative, known as the Australian Recognition Framework, which will ensure that training organisations meet high standards and that skills and qualifications are recognised across Australia. For the first time, we will have a truly national training system.The other major initiative, training packages, links industry competency standards and assessment guidelines directly with national qualifications. This is not just a technical change. It is a whole new approach that creates the basis for moving away from cumbersome and rigid arrangements based on external course accreditation.Industry endorsed standards now cover over 78 per cent of the work force. There are already 12 training packages available and another 45 are under development. It is most encouraging to see the widespread, active industry involvement in the development of training packages and the enthusiasm of so many for the new opportunities the packages create. The new ANTA agreement also provides a solid foundation for pursuing market reform, including increased competition, within the vocational education and training sector.In recent years, states and territories have increased the proportion of funding allocated to competitive activities, resulting in increased provision of publicly funded accredited training by private providers. This has included training places secured through open tendering, preferred supplier arrangements and strategic partnerships between providers. States and territories are also implementing user choice for apprenticeships and traineeships, whereby funds flow to the training provider chosen by employers and apprentices or trainees.A network of strong TAFE institutes, operating alongside and in competition with quality private providers, is an essential feature of an effective and responsive vocational education and training sector. Increased competition is an important mechanism that can drive improvements in the training system to increase responsiveness, efficiency, quality and client choice. For this reason, I strongly support the further development of a diverse vocational education and training market with a mix of public and private providers delivering high quality services.The new ANTA agreement provides a basis to encourage a stronger training culture in Australian enterprises and throughout the Australian community. To complement this, the government has introduced historic reforms to make apprenticeships and traineeships more accessible and responsive to industry needs. The government's new apprenticeships reforms are also providing expanded opportunities for young people.In the past, many employers, particularly in small businesses, have been put off from recruiting apprentices and trainees by the complexity of the arrangements, the red tape and the need to deal with many organisations. To assist in overcoming these barriers, the government has introduced improved new apprenticeship support services. From 1 May, employers, apprentices and trainees have had access to new apprenticeship centres which will help cut the red tape and provide a `one stop' integrated service. There are currently 59 organisations operating new apprenticeship centres in over 200 sites across Australia.Apprenticeships themselves have been modernised and are now expanding real work-based training into new industries and occupations. In a flexible way they are delivering training which responds directly to the needs of businesses; and are opening up opportunities for many young Australians, in high growth industries as well as in traditional trades. Already new apprenticeships are expanding into industries such as agriculture, telecommunications, and information technology where, for many occupations, there have been no nationally recognised training arrangements or qualifications. The number of new apprentices in training reached record levels at the end of 1997 of over 182,000 people. This is an increase of 12.7 per cent on 1996 figures. If current trends continue, we expect that during 1998 people in new apprenticeship training will exceed 200,000 for the first time.To underpin the strong growth in training opportunities for young people, the federal government has allocated $433 million in the 1998-99 budget to support the continued expansion of new apprenticeships. The government's landmark reforms to vocational education and training embodied in the new ANTA agreement will provide a sound basis for the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and industry in partnership to meet the training challenges that the economy and community will face as we move into the next century. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Keefe) adjourned. Bills5236r5535236Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.523609:55:005236Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Family Law Amendment Bill (No. l) makes two changes to the Family Law Act 1975 to facilitate Australia's international arrangements on intercountry adoption. For many years state and territory governments have operated programs with other countries to bring children to Australia for adoption by Australian parents. I understand that some 300 children are adopted each year under these programs.In recent years the Victorian Department of Human Services has been negotiating with authorities in the People's Republic of China to establish a new bilateral agreement on adoption of children from that country by Australian parents. Unfortunately the conclusion of an agreement has been delayed because of concern on the part of Chinese authorities that adoption decisions made under Chinese law are not given automatic recognition under Australian law. There is no consistent mechanism in Australian state and territory law for automatic recognition of overseas adoptions.This bill will amend the Family Law Act to enable regulations to be made giving automatic recognition to adoption decisions made under the law of prescribed overseas jurisdictions. At this time, the only jurisdiction which will be prescribed is the People's Republic of China. However in future, if state and territory governments agree, it will be possible for further regulations to be made prescribing other jurisdictions.The bill will also amend the Family Law Act to facilitate arrangements for implementation of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Alexander Downer, MP, tabled the convention in parliament on 1 April this year. Arrangements for implementation of the convention have been developed by the Commonwealth government in consultation with state and territory governments. State and territory governments have proposed that certain state and territory courts exercise jurisdiction to make adoption decisions under the convention. Existing provisions in the Family Law Act permit jurisdiction to be conferred on some but not all of the relevant state and territory courts. The bill will amend the act to enable regulations to be made to deal comprehensively with the conferral of jurisdiction on courts in intercountry adoption matters.The amendments made by the bill have no financial impact. I hope that these amendments can be passed in time for the implementation later this year of both the Hague convention and the proposed bilateral agreement with the People's Republic of China. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Keefe) adjourned.Bills5237r5625237Bill presented by Mr Abbott, for Dr Kemp, and read a first time.523709:58:005237Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Bill 1998 proposes to amend section 20 of the principal act, the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991. Section 20 of the ESOS act is a sunset clause which will deactivate the act on 1 January 1999.The government requests an amendment to the sunset clause by extending the date the sunset clause takes effect from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2002. This amendment recognises that the ESOS act:. has universal and strong support of stakeholders in the industry; and. has achieved its objectives of ensuring the quality of providers and courses and a stable domestic environment for the industry.A stable domestic environment is particularly important to maintain confidence in Australia's international education industry during the current volatile period in many of Australia's major source markets.The ESOS act was introduced to provide both financial protection and quality assurance for international students who choose to study in Australia. In 1993 the ESOS act was amended to enhance the quality and integrity of our educational products and to strengthen the protection that the act offers to international students' prepaid funds. These assurances are specified by registering providers of international education and training, based on state or territory approval and accreditation, and by imposing financial conditions on private education providers.The principal act was introduced in 1991 to meet three main objectives, namely:. to ensure that international students in Australia are treated with equity and fairness;. to provide a positive basis for promoting Australia's international reputation as a provider of reliable high quality education and training;. and to ensure that taxpayers' funds are not required to recompense international students who may have been let down by individual education or training providers.These objectives remain relevant today. This is the universal view of industry representatives expressed to independent consultants in national consultations in 1996 and in further consultations with stakeholders in April and May 1998.In 1996 the ESOS act was amended to extend the sunset clause from 1 January 1997 to 1 January 1999. This followed a review of the ESOS act by an independent consultant which indicated universal support for the continuation of the current cooperative approach to industry regulation. The reviewers found strong support for the Commonwealth maintaining a regulatory role in relation to the education exports industry. The relevant arguments relate to international trade, immigration and foreign affairs matters which could not readily be coordinated by the states or territories or by industry bodies.International trade in education and training services will earn an estimated $3.4 billion for Australia in export revenue in 1998. Stakeholders argue that the existing regulation of the industry adds value in the marketplace and they have indicated strong support for retaining the ESOS Act as part of a cooperative Commonwealth, state, territory and industry approach to regulation. In particular, they want to maintain the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. There are costs to the Commonwealth in maintaining the regulatory framework, including the register. The costs are shared by the Commonwealth and industry through the collection of annual and initial registration charges, introduced in 1997.The cooperative regulatory model, with the Commonwealth's ESOS act as the key national element, has successfully maintained a stable domestic environment for the education and training services export industry over the past five years. This is evidenced by Australia's highly successful engagement in education exports and the continued strong support which stakeholders have for the ESOS act.Stakeholders' support for the ESOS act recognises that the growth of Australia's international education industry depends on the confidence that students overseas have in the quality of the courses they undertake and the protection of the moneys they invest in receiving an Australian education.The international education and training industry is an important and valuable one for Australia. It is a major part of Australia's growth in the export of services, bringing many intangible benefits, including the development of contacts for future trade, ideas and international perspectives. The confidence of students is fundamental to the credibility and viability of the industry, which accounts for over $3 billion in export earnings annually. This industry deserves the support of the existing Commonwealth, state, territory and industry cooperative framework. This bill enables the framework to continue until 1 January 2002 during a volatile and uncertain period for export services industries.A three-year extension to the ESOS act's sunset clause will allow a stable domestic environment to be maintained during a time of economic volatility in major source markets. The extension will also allow time for the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and industry to focus on possible future regulatory models with a view to progressing a greater degree of self regulation. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Keefe) adjourned.Committees52385238523810:04:005238Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 360: Internet commerce—To buy or not to buy .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I have pleasure in presenting the committee's Report No. 360: Internet commerce—To buy or not to buy? This inquiry rates as one of the most important conducted by the committee in recent times. The new communications and commercial opportunities created by the Internet are profound and will dramatically influence not only Australia's economy but also the world economy. The inquiry focused on Australian small and medium enterprises and the operation of the customs screen free limit, the privacy regime, the administration of the taxation system and the implications for Australia's tax base arising from the growth in Internet commerce.The committee was advised during the inquiry that it was one of the few parliamentary committees in the OECD conducting a broad-ranging inquiry into Internet commerce. The committee will therefore send the report to parliaments of other OECD countries in order to share our findings and generate debate. The key areas of the inquiry include: the statistical data base, taxation issues, the customs screen free limit and privacy issues.The committee considers that its examination of the available statistical database was an essential part of this inquiry. I will briefly discuss some of the key statistical data. Currently, there are between 500,000 and four million Internet users in Australia, depending on different research reports and different measurement criteria. According to www.consult, there were some one million regular Internet users accessing the web once a week or more frequently in Australia in January 1998, although there were some 600,000 other, less regular users. There are also an additional 500,000 email users with the ability to send and receive email over the Internet. There are some 15,000 enterprises, consisting of both government and business, with permanent access to the Internet. The cost of permanent access to the Internet in Australia is currently much higher than the United States and, although not dissimilar to other countries in the region, this is a potential source of competitive disadvantage.In January 1998, there were some 54,800 enterprise web sites in Australia, although only 21,600 were hosted in an on-line shopping mall or were part of a directory or listing service. The number of enterprise web sites continues to grow at the rate of some 50 to 100 per day. It is likely that enterprise adoption of Internet access and services will be somewhat slower than earlier predictions because of the time and resources required to properly develop Internet business strategies and implementation plans, as well as the justification of cost.Overall, Australia appears to be well positioned from the point of view of infrastructure services, and competitive commercial interests are driving Internet and electronic use adoption. It is likely that enterprise adoption will vary by industry, business size, market competition and market opportunities.I now move to taxation issues. The efficiency and effectiveness of tax administration is a key concern of the committee. The rise of Internet commerce will present a range of challenges for tax administration. The Internet will transcend state and national borders, and commerce will be global in every sense. Small and medium enterprises, and more consumers than ever before, will have the opportunity to buy and sell goods internationally.Some of the goods and services will be downloaded electronically and the entire transaction will be protected by a sophisticated encryption system. In this case, the first challenge for the tax administrator is to identify that a transaction has occurred and in what jurisdiction. The next task is to assess whether tax should be applied and how it should be paid.Internet commerce requires an international approach to taxation. For example, a business entity may be located in one country, have its web server in another country and then direct payments and other revenue to offshore banking facilities and tax havens. What is most significant about this scenario is that it will be relatively cheap to do, and potentially a wide range of people and SMEs could plan their affairs in this way. Tax administrations will have difficulty in determining and exercising tax jurisdiction. These are some of the reasons why tax administrations around the world are giving serious attention to the various implications of Internet commerce.One of the key issues that came to the attention of the committee was the debate surrounding international taxation sharing concepts such as source, residency and permanent establishment. These taxation concepts help to create a legal basis for tax jurisdiction. The onset of Internet commerce will complicate the application and interpretation of these principles.The US government has suggested that source concepts may lose relevance and be replaced with residency as the major taxation concept. The committee is yet to be convinced that the US preference for residency principles is either in Australia's best interest as a taxation formula or an inevitable development. More time, research and international consultation is needed to explore how existing taxation concepts are interpreted and applied. Other OECD countries should critically review the applicability of existing taxation concepts such as source and residency and consider how these concepts can be adapted to the Internet environment.In August 1997, the Australian Taxation Office released the report Tax and the Internet, which contained 29 draft recommendations. The ATO's overarching objective in its report was to achieve neutrality between the physical and electronic worlds. The committee is confident that the ATO is correct in finding that there will not be any appreciable impact on tax collections arising from Internet commerce in the next one to two years. Beyond this period, however, it is difficult to make predictions. The committee supports the ATO with its objective to continue measuring the risks to income tax and the tax system generally from Internet commerce. In addition to this objective, the ATO should report its findings on a regular basis in its annual report.The committee notes the potential for consumers to order and receive goods, such as music CDs and music videos, over the Internet. Sales tax does not apply to intangible goods. The committee notes that, in a GST environment, supply of functionally equivalent products should attract the same rate of tax whether in tangible or intangible form. However, the supply of intangible products from outside the tax jurisdiction is a major issue for overseas GST/VAT regimes. These regimes are currently searching for solutions, and it is clear that international cooperation and agreement will be necessary to achieve solutions to identifying and taxing electronic commerce.The committee is seeking more information from Treasury and the ATO on international developments concerning possible strategies for collecting GST on products and services that are ordered and delivered electronically. For example, in the future, it is possible that millions of Australians could be downloading music to blank CDs in their own homes and the ATO would have significant problems with GST compliance.The Customs `screen free limit' is a general term used to describe the duty and sales tax free limit and the commercial entry thresholds for imported goods. If the duty and sales tax on an imported good is less than $50 and the value of the consignment is below the commercial entry threshold, no customs duty is required and the consignment is screened free.The Australian Customs Service does not record data on those imports that are screened free. In response to the committee's inquiry, Customs commissioned a survey of low value goods. The committee compared these results against the claims made by some retailing groups. This analysis was fundamental to determining the appropriateness of the duty and sales tax free limit, currently set at $50, and the commercial entry thresholds.Some Australian retailing groups advised the committee that their viability was under threat from a combination of the screen free limit, an uncompetitive wholesale sales tax regime and the growth in Internet commerce. It was claimed that the Internet would lead to an increase in consumers taking advantage of the screen free limit. The committee has carefully examined the claims made by some retailing groups. The AC Nielsen survey result and data from Australian Post and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are not consistent with the claims made by various retailing groups.The AC Nielsen survey data used for this inquiry is from stage 2 of a three-stage survey. The survey involved the selection of 4,107 postal and screen free air cargo consignments during a two-week period during November 1997. The survey showed that importations of fishing tackle, CDs and jewellery under the screen free limit were very low. It is possible to criticise the survey based on the size of the sample frame and the survey period of only two weeks. However, the committee argues that it would be rash to radically reduce the duty and sales tax free limit without any evidence showing a signifi cant increase in imported goods under the screen free limit.In view of the statistical evidence, the committee recommends that the duty and sales tax free limit should remain at $50. The commercial entry thresholds for both postal and non-postal consignments should immediately be set at $1,000. Australian Customs should proceed with stage 3 of the survey into low value goods and ensure that the right to conduct the survey is determined according to Australian Public Service tender procedures and that a representative of the retailing industry is on the coordinating committee for the survey. Australian Customs must establish an ongoing data series which records statistical information on the quantity, value and types of goods entering Australia under the screen free limit.An effective privacy regime is a threshold issue for the successful development of Internet commerce. The committee took particular note of the arguments for and against a self-regulatory privacy regime. The committee concludes that a light touch legislated privacy regime will be more efficient than a self-regulatory approach. Privacy regulation for the private sector will ensure better coverage, receive international recognition and will discourage state governments from passing their own legislation.The committee does not take this position lightly. Internet commerce must be left to develop in an environment in which the private sector responds to market forces. The role of government should be minimal and directed at providing certainty for both consumers and business through a light touch regulatory regime.In the case of privacy, there is overwhelming evidence for legislation. First, the committee is not persuaded that a self-regulatory privacy regime will have sufficient enforcement provisions to ensure compliance. In a legislated privacy regime, companies ignoring the legislation would be acting illegally and their business credibility could be destroyed if they were revealed. Under a self-regulatory approach, there is no legal incentive for a company to comply, and it is problematic that consumer confidence would be adversely affected if it was shown that a company was not complying with privacy principles.A second issue is the importance of consumer confidence in ensuring the growth of Internet commerce. Internet users must have reasonable confidence that their privacy is protected. Third, there is not sufficient evidence showing that business supports a self-regulatory approach. For example, the Price Waterhouse privacy survey revealed that, of those businesses surveyed, 70 per cent supported legislation. In evidence to the inquiry, the National Australia Bank supported the introduction of legislation.The Victorian government announced a proposal for a data protection bill covering both the public and private sectors. The Victorian minister for multimedia, the Hon. Mr Alan Stockdale, also commented that Victoria would vacate the field if the Commonwealth established a suitable privacy regime.If Victoria and other states pass their own privacy legislation, the federal government's self-regulatory privacy regime could be made redundant. The private sector would have a clear incentive to comply with a state legislated privacy regime and could ignore the federal government's self-regulatory approach. Under this scenario, the federal government would eventually be forced to legislate. During this chain of events, national corporations may have to comply with privacy legislation from a number of individual states which could introduce confusion and significantly add to compliance costs. For these reasons, the committee recommends that the government develop privacy legislation for the private sector.In conclusion, I would like to express the committee's appreciation to those people who contributed to the inquiry by preparing submissions and giving evidence at public hearings. I wish to thank the members of the sectional committee for their time and dedication in conducting what has been a complex and rewarding inquiry. I also thank the secretariat staff who have assisted in the conduct of this inquiry: the secretary to the committee, Margo Kerley, sectional committee secretary, Stephen Boyd, and support staff Georgina Binks and Tiana Gray. I would also like to thank the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Somlyay) for initiating this inquiry in 1997. I commend the report to the House.10:20:005242Beddall, David, MPMr BEDDALLQE4RankinALP00—by leave—I congratulate the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), on his short statement. I support the remarks made by the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on the inquiry into Internet commerce.Internet commerce is one of the most challenging and exciting opportunities for Australia's international and domestic trade. There are many factors which led the JCPAA to initiate this important inquiry. These included the rapid advances with Internet communications, reports of dramatic increases in Internet usage rates and the notion that Internet commerce will continue to grow at an ever increasing rate. The inquiry also results from a number of industry representations about the revenue, business and trade implications of the increase in the volume of commercial dealings occurring on the Internet.The report highlights the need for government to place a watchful eye on Internet commerce, especially in areas like taxation. Recommendation 2 follows from this concern:The Australian Taxation Office must continue to monitor the risks to income tax and the tax system generally from Internet commerce, continue to enhance methodologies for determining revenue loss and report its findings on a regular basis in its annual report . . . It was suggested that the ATO and Treasury report on international developments concerning possible strategies for collecting the government's proposed new tax on goods and services that are ordered and delivered electronically. I am sure that the current debate over tax reform will include this important area of trade. But, given that Internet commerce is an evolving market, the committee recognised that it was unable to make specific and far reaching recommendations.Over 80 submissions were received and they came from individuals, government agencies, banks and industry organisations. As a former minister for small business, I took great interest in the international competitiveness of Australia's small and medium enterprise sector. Clearly, one of the key conclusions outlined in the report is the need for a stable regulatory environment that gives business and consumers confidence in the area of Internet commerce. Some of the key regulatory issues included security and privacy, consumer protection, identification and authentication, taxation and intellectual property and copyright.The committee concluded that there is the need for a detailed examination into the awareness and competitiveness of Australian industry in the Internet commerce environment. Equally, consumers' rights and privacy influence a range of matters being considered by the inquiry. The committee found that consumers are somewhat reluctant to purchase goods and services over the Internet because of concerns with payment and protection. I fully support the committee's recommendation 17 with respect to privacy legislation in this business sector. If we are going to have confidence in the Internet, then the issue of privacy is one that must be addressed by the regulator. As the chairman said, we think the light hand of legislation should be used, as this is a very important factor in ensuring that Australians take advantage of the Internet.In conclusion, I would like to thank the chairman and the committee members for their worthwhile work on the whole inquiry, and in particular I thank the secretariat for the work that it did on this and all other inquiries. Commerce on the Internet provides enormous opportunities for Australia's small business sector and consumers alike. There need to be safeguards in place and the government must ensure equity and fairness in the electronic marketplace. I am sure this inquiry is the first step to ensuring this. I commend the report to the House.10:25:005242Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—by leave—It gives me great pleasure to make some comments on the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit entitled Report 360: Internet commerce—To buy or not to buy? This report is a landmark report in many ways. This report is not just an Australian first but a world leader in bringing together some statistical data on Internet commerce, particularly within the OECD. It certainly highlights the coalition government's commitment to Internet technology, and that commitment obviously extends to regional Australia with the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund. I was privileged to be a member of the committee examining such important and revolutionary issues.The inquiry was initiated for three reasons: firstly, the rapid advances occurring with Internet communications and usage and trade with associated tax implications; secondly, representation from industry on these issues; and, thirdly, action overseas on Internet commerce, with inquiries by the US government and the European Union. The focus of the inquiry was on a range of issues including privacy, database and taxation.Internet commerce is growing at a rate comparable to the Internet itself. We know that the Internet is growing fast but it is very difficult to estimate how big it is. Estimates in this report have access ranging from less than two per cent of the population through to almost 20 per cent. But that was last year. Last year I did not use the Internet. Not only has the Internet now become an essential tool in my office but also I have my own home page. The main factors that affect consumer uptake include the cost of access, concerns about security and privacy and response times.Business uptake is also growing. The April 1998 Yellow Pages survey of E-commerce in small and medium businesses showed that over three-quarters of businesses now use computers, more than two in five businesses own modems—the device used to encode data for transmission down phone lines and a vital prerequisite for Internet access—and over 45 per cent of businesses use the Internet, twice as many as 12 months ago. So it is a geometric progression. Businesses use the Internet for email, research, exchanging information, advertising, international market contact and a myriad of other uses, but in this case it is for commerce.Internationally, we have a reputation for our rapid uptake of new technology. We have the second highest number of mobile phones per capita in the world, and the Internet is no exception. Only the US, Hong Kong and Canada are more online than Australia. So we have fast growth worldwide and an even faster growth happening in this country.For the government, this does create enormous and serious taxation challenges, and that certainly was a major concern of the committee. The chairman of the committee, the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), and the member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) have covered this aspect of the report today. As there is limited time, it does not allow me to go into this at great length, but I would like to highlight the important contribution made by the committee in regard to reassessing the customs threshold and also trying to tackle what type of regulatory regime will be used as we move into the next century.I would like to concentrate on chapter 6 of the report which deals with growth opportunities for Australian small business. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in their evidence said:If Australian SMEs do not become widely involved in electronic commerce when there is a business case for doing so, or if that involvement occurs more slowly than in our major trading partners, this could undermine our medium to long-term international competitiveness and slow economic growth.That message is certainly very well understood across regional Australia, particularly on the north coast of New South Wales. In my electorate, we have an ideal mix for the successful use of Internet commerce, with a relatively highly educated labour pool, a telecommunications infrastructure which is improving in terms of quality and price, a growing range of Internet service providers and a range of small businesses producing a variety of exportable goods and services, particularly high value crops such as nuts and medicinal plants. Of course, these are medicinal plants of the legal variety. It was with this in mind that Chris Sanderson set up a study for the Regional Internet Marketing Cooperative, which was one of the first grants awarded under the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund. The RIMC aims to streamline the export process by marketing local goods overseas via the Internet and in other cooperative ways.In conclusion, the use of the Internet is essential for Australia's future. It breaches the tyranny of distance not just domestically in this country but also globally and provides enormous benefits through commerce. It also provides increasing challenges, as mentioned by other speakers, with regard to how we tax the particular items that come through on the Internet, which is particularly difficult with software, whether it be through the downloading of CDs or through the actual data transmission of software and the like. These are exciting challenges. I would like to thank the committee chairman, Mr Bob Charles, the other members of the committee and the staff: Margo, Georgina, Tiana and the secretary, Steve Boyd.10:29:005244Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—by leave—I too want to comment on report 360, Internet commerce—To buy or not to buy? of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I think it is a very important contribution to the development of the debate on consumer protection and privacy issues in particular in relation to the growth of Internet commerce. This is the way of the world for the next century. It will be a case not only of using your mail system for catalogue buying to supplement access to local commercial outlets but also of being able to sit at home and tap into your computer on the Internet system to undertake purchasing, selling and making inquiries. The Internet inquiry included in its terms of reference:(f) the current frameworks for consumer protection and the protection of intellectual propertyThis is particularly important, as is the policy approach that has been taken by other countries and the scope for international cooperation.Clearly the Internet is borderless. You can sit in your own home or at your place of business and tap into the attempts to conduct commerce around the globe. At the moment we have very few policy frameworks or options to regulate the protection of intellectual property in particular or the privacy concerns that are paramount when individuals try to interact with another partner or, per haps, look at joint venturing in another place via the Internet.Chapter 7 teases out these issues of consumer protection and privacy issues. For example, consumer protection privacy issues for Internet commerce users were seen as key not only in Australia but also in the United States. It is obvious that consumers too must have a sufficient level of confidence about payment and security systems as well as knowing that privacy standards are adequate. During the committee's round table forum, participants identified security, privacy, identification and authentication as key issues requiring further development. I commend anyone who is at all involved in Internet commerce in Australia to look hard at this report, and in particular chapter 7, to understand what the issues are and what some other nations are already looking to for solutions.The consumer and business issues relating to security, privacy and authentication are amongst some of the most important issues, and surveys have repeatedly shown that these may, in the future, be some of the stumbling blocks for this new dimension of Internet commerce reaching its full potential. For example, the Australian Consumers Association advised the committee that a recent survey of American consumers showed that in the US privacy was the No. 1 concern.At the consumer level, it is likely that consumers will be given the options to provide personal and private data, often in return for inducements by advertisers and marketers. Once you have given that sort of information, what guarantee is there that your private details are not on-sold to some other agency or business activity that can use that information to target you with quite a deal of unwanted information? Perhaps it could end up in a situation of harassment.The potential for unauthorised access to private information by third parties through the Internet is significant, and currently it is unlikely that such access can be completely stopped. It is also impractical for businesses to completely stop breaches of security from within the business or from the Internet. We always have to remember that the beauty of the Internet is its accessibility. To try to clamp down on access to the vast majority of potential participants in itself would be to curtail one of the great benefits of Internet commerce. On the other hand, we have to somehow find a balance.The Internet is an open system. It was never designed with security as a priority. There is evidence to suggest that consumers are, however, reluctant to purchase goods and services over the Internet because of concerns not only about payment systems and consumer protection issues such as redress and compensation and the reliability of retailers but also about where their personal details might end up.The jurisdiction in which the supplier is located may have consumer protection laws but the process for an Australian consumer to activate these laws may be complicated and costly. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission states:Unfortunately, difficulties with enforcing protection legislation in the global marketplace means that the current regulatory framework for internet commerce may not be sufficient to give consumers the degree of confidence they need to accept the internet as a safe means of commerce.The ACCC suggested a range of alternative consumer protection strategies to improve consumer confidence and these are carefully documented in the evidence that was provided to the Public Accounts Committee.First is the need for coordinated law enforcement and compliance strategies. It is all very well to talk about coordination, but with the Internet we are talking about global and, in Australia, interstate coordination. International cooperation by law enforcement agencies could help to improve the Internet commerce environment. The ACCC, together with similar law enforcement agencies, told this inquiry that they have already conducted international Internet sweep days whereby enforcement agencies surf the Internet for scams such as get-rich-quick schemes and inform the operators of web sites about the existence of consumer protection legislation in participating countries.As well, the ACCC suggests that there should be industry based solutions, that they will in fact be an important element of any overall solution to the consumer protection problems associated with Internet commerce. Of course, self-regulation is always ideal where those who wish to conduct commerce on the Internet can see that if there is ever a substantial loss of confidence in the Internet commerce then all will be losers, all will be the poorer.In the absence of the practical option of traditional regulatory regimes to operate in the global marketplace, there has to be the development of a new policy framework. That is obvious. That framework should deliver many of the levels of protection consumers traditionally expect but without, on the other hand, shutting down parts of the system for easy access to those who want to participate. In Australia we have the complication of interstate trade laws, and it is quite clear that the FBCA warns that transactions across state and territory borders may require additional coordination between Australia's fair trading agencies.This is a very important report. It looks at the potential of growth for Internet commerce. In a country like Australia, as the previous speaker said, we have the tyranny of distance. We have those who have very little access to a range of shopping facilities or innovative services that can only be had at the moment by surfing the Internet and looking through the window of other people's experiences globally. One of our problems of making sure that the tyranny of distance is overcome with Internet commerce is to make sure that our own telecommunications infrastructure comes up to speed.At the moment, while some of the greatest advantages for Internet commerce are for those who are located in regional Australia, we have the poorest ability for people to access the Internet. The time it takes for them to get on and the cost of using Internet is often prohibitive. That dimension which was not a focus of this report, but it is one of those real issues which this government is addressing, in particular, through some innovative funding, like the $5 million recently given to the National Farmers Federation to specifically explore Internet access for regional and remote Australians. I am happy to mention in relation to this whole business of Internet commerce that some $660,000 is now being spent in the Cobram area of the electorate of Murray to explore how access to Internet in particular can be improved for those whose infrastructure is aged and not of a standard you would expect to find in a metropolitan area.Report No. 360: Internet commerce—To buy or not to buy? is a substantial piece of work. I commend all of those who worked very hard on this report. The report will obviously be of great significance to all of those who wish to develop Internet commerce for Australia so that it delivers benefits. All of the difficulties associated with such innovative technology need overcoming. They need new policy frameworks, but this government will work to make sure that those new frameworks are delivered.5246Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.5246524610:41:005246Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of 1996-97 annual reports—Thirteenth report .Ordered that the report be printed.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH—by leave—Pursuant to section 206(c) of the Native Title Act 1993, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund has the duty to report to both houses about matters relating to annual reports prepared by the President of the National Native Title Tribunal or by any person under part 4A of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. The committee's 13th report, which I am tabling today, examines the 1996-97 annual reports of the National Native Title Tribunal, the land fund and the Indigenous Land Corporation.The National Native Title Tribunal, in response to past suggestions and recommendations from the committee, has produced its most accessible and professional annual report to date. However, the committee has reservations about the practices of the tribunal in relation to the issues of impartiality and neutrality. In particular, some concern is held for remarks made by a member of the tribunal, Mr Sean Flood, concerning the government's 10-point Wik plan during a speech he made at the University of New South Wales in June 1997.Following some controversy concerning his speech, Mr Flood agreed to take one week's leave to allow his position to be considered by the tribunal president, Justice Robert French. Notably, Mr Flood remains a member of the tribunal. While the committee has not held any public hearings at which the incident concerning Mr Flood could be considered, the issue of tribunal impartiality will be addressed when the committee completes its duties pursuant to section 206(d) of the Native Title Act 1993. These duties include an inquiry into the effectiveness of the tribunal.The Indigenous Land Corporation is an independent statutory authority established under section 191A of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. Its role is to assist indigenous Australians to acquire and manage land in order to obtain economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits.In response to the 1996-97 annual report of the ILC, the committee has made a number of comments about the information presented. Importantly, it has also requested further information. Unfortunately, the ILC has on a number of occasions failed to respond to suggestions by the committee and to provide information within its annual report which the committee has specifically sought. For example, the committee recommended in its eighth report that the ILC present a comprehensive account of land under management in its next annual report.It was also suggested at a meeting with the ILC on 24 March 1997 that the annual report for 1996-97 should contain a register of properties under ILC management. This has not occurred. The ILC has also failed to include a comprehensive account of the consultants it employed and moneys it expended on consultants between July 1996 and June 1997. It is necessary for the committee to have access to this information. As such, the committee will be seeking the information from 1996-97 immediately. The ILC should report on this issue in all future annual reports.Furthermore, the ILC has failed to address questions raised by the committee in relation to the land fund. The committee would be most concerned were the ILC to fail to respond to questions that it is asked. I wish to make it quite clear that in this regard the committee will pursue to the full its responsibilities as outlined in the Native Title Act 1993.This said, the committee appreciates the sound working relationship with both the National Native Title Tribunal and the ILC in relation to their annual reports. It is clear that the annual reports tabled over the last few years have improved considerably as a consequence of the committee's scrutiny, and I commend the report to the House.10:46:005247Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I want to make a comment in relation to only one aspect of the report of the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund that has been tabled in the parliament today. It was touched on by the chair of the committee, the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), in his speech and it is to do with the impartiality and neutrality of the National Native Title Tribunal.I think that the current President of the Native Title Tribunal, Justice Robert French, has been an outstanding member of that tribunal and that the tribunal—despite criticism by some in another place in relation to it—as the record shows, has been independent and impartial and has been performing a very valuable public information role. We on all sides of the House need to bear that in mind, especially in recent times when there is a lot of misinformation in the marketplace.In relation to the comments on Mr Flood, at the outset I should point out to the House that I served as a public defender with Mr Flood in New South Wales. He is no longer a member of the Native Title Tribunal. My understanding is that he has tendered his resignation and is currently back working as a public defender, specifically representing indigenous Australians, in a 12-month funded position. I wanted to update the parliament and the committee about that.I have had the opportunity to read the comments that Mr Flood made in his speech. Whilst some aspects of the language he used might be regarded as florid, as a parliament we need to be very careful we are not too precious. When it comes to people with experience who have a longstanding commitment—and Mr Flood's commitment to indigenous Australians goes well back into the 1970s—and a long history in the area, we should not be too precious because Mr Flood, as he explained at the time, was speaking in a personal capacity.I for one do not want to see a situation where we appoint people who have expertise to tribunals—in this newfound era of free speech that our Prime Minister (Mr Howard) applauds—and we then turn around, when someone does not toe the government line, and jump on them by saying they are not impartial.Mr Flood, in all his deliberations on the tribunal and in his professional capacity, was always impartial, compassionate, caring, civil and courteous. Frankly, I believe that there has been an overreaction to his speech at the University of New South Wales.I note there is no overreaction when you have people who have highly paid positions in Telstra entering the political debate and advocating the full sale of Telstra or where you had people in the Commonwealth Bank, when it was still partially owned by the people, entering the debate and saying, `Let us have full privatisation.' There is a double standard here.I have updated the record in relation to Mr Flood. He tendered his resignation and is no longer a member of the tribunal. I think he himself acknowledges that perhaps he was too colourful in some of his language, but I do believe there has been an overreaction. I want to place on record the appreciation of the parliament for the services he has given.In relation to the other reports, our examination shows that the Indigenous Land Corporation and others are working well. David Ross, who heads the ILC, is in my view an outstanding public servant and ambassador for his people.I commend the report to the parliament. I think it is correct that we highlight the fact that the question of impartiality was raised in the last 12 months. In commending the report to the parliament, I also note that Mr Flood is doing terrific work in his current job.Bills5248r4245248Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Committees52485248524810000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Carr has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories and that Senator Crossin has been appointed a member of the committee.Bills5248r5505248Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.10:52:005248Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise with some enthusiasm to speak to the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 for two reasons: firstly, to strongly support this move that has been taken by the government to extend the eligibility for the veterans gold card to all World War II veterans who faced danger from hostile fire and who are now over the age of 70 and, secondly, to make some remarks in this context about the values and sacrifices personified by this group of special Australians in terms of contemporary political developments and what is happening to our nation.The veterans gold card initiative will commence on 1 January 1999, 54 years after the end of World War II. Half of those eligible for the card in fact have no current contact with the Department of Veterans' Affairs; so of course it will take some time to make them aware of their new eligibility. The gold card provides to the holder access to the full range of medical, hospital, pharmaceutical, dental and allied services. In addition, the card provides for transport to access of treatment. Nonetheless, a patient contribution will still be required for pharmaceuticals and nursing home care.The card is specifically for health treatment only. A number of constituents who have contacted my office seemed to think that it might be a general concession card. It is important to point out that it does not entitle holders to discounted municipal council rates, electricity, public transport, vehicle registration, a driver's licence and those kinds of benefits. It is also worth noting that this relieves state and territory governments of about an $80 million per year liability over the five years of the next Australian health care agreements for the care of veterans which ought, obviously, to be considered in the context of the states' attitudes to the hospital financing agreements put up by the Commonwealth.The extension of the gold card to these World War II veterans is not means tested nor is it dependent upon suffering a war-caused incapacity or injury. There are many reasons for that, but foremost amongst them, I think, ought to be that veterans are a special group of people. They are people who made a unique and extraordinary contribution to this nation, its people, security and values. They should not be treated as welfare recipients but rather as the special group of Australians that they are.In this context, I would like to again draw the attention of the House to a publication by the 2nd/30th Battalion AIF entitled Getting On With It. It was funded essentially by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I would also like to thank the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) for recently acceding to a request I made to provide another $2,000 for a reprint of this publication.This publication is intended to try to teach the current generation of young Australians about some of the values that these men of the 2nd/30th endured, often as prisoners of war, at the hands of the Japanese during World War II. I will read from the back cover where it says:After the fall of Singapore on February 15, 1942 many thousand Allied troops, including almost 22,000 Australians, subsequently became prisoners of war. These prisoners were sent in working parties, comprising mixed units and nationalities, to the areas indicated on the map.That map appears on the back cover. It goes on to say:During the 3½ years they spent in tortuous captivity, a third of the Australians lost their lives.This publication for the 2/30th Battalion AIF Association offers to following generations a message of hope and inspiration in overcoming the challenges of everyday life.The foreword has been written by Major General Maitland, a man for whom I have the highest regard. If anyone wants some inspiration at a time when our country faces enormous change, I suggest they read his Tales of Valour . His foreword said this:The 2/30th Battalion AIF Association has asked that I write this foreword for young Australians who have not had the benefit of those unique mind and spirit broadening experiences that were the lot of those who went to war.Today we live in a fortunate environment where we take freedom for granted; however half a century ago evil reigned over much of the world and we in Australia were able to see clearly both the intolerable conditions of those who had lost their freedom and the threat to our own country and its people. After the alternatives were exhausted, war was the inescapable final solution. We of that generation would not wish to see young Australians go to war again, nevertheless we would wish to see them develop in the same way as those who went to war and became better people through their experiences. This book describes how ordinary people can rise above extraordinary difficulties and if the book is taken to heart it will, to a degree, substitute for such experiences.Hopefully Australians as a whole will never again be called upon to show physical courage; however each and every one will, at a relatively early age, be confronted by situations requiring something more important—moral courage.And it is that about which I wish to speak somewhat in relation to One Nation and the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). The foreword goes on:It is often easy to avoid an issue; but through finding the moral courage that is within all of us, self discipline and a positive attitude will follow and the first steps will have been taken along the road to achievements.Striding forward on that road, with consideration and concern for others and with gratefulness for the simple joys of life, will bring contentment and the self esteem of living up to the standards set by those who served in the 2/30th Australian Infantry Battalion. Like them you have become a good Australian.The introduction to the publication—and I am leading, Mr Deputy Speaker, to what I think will probably be some rather provocative remarks in relation to the contemporary political environment in which we find ourselves—says this:This collaborative publication relates in words and pictures the wartime experiences of the men of the 2/30th Battalion Australian Imperial Forces 8th Division.The men of the 2/30th developed a lasting bond with each other as a result of their months of training in Tamworth and Bathurst, their successful battles against the Japanese in Malaya and their subsequent confinement and hardship as Prisoners of War.Fifty years on, the Battalion's Association still desires to communicate their experiences. They do not want to glorify war or condone it. They wish to offer to today's youth, and others who may find themselves in difficult circumstances, hope and wisdom to overcome real obstacles in everyday life.To compile this publication, many Battalion men were interviewed and asked to comment on themes including mateship, faith, compassion, resourcefulness, self esteem and survival. What follows is a collection of quotations from these interviews, offered without individual acknowledgment, but combined as one voice to relate the men's stories and their recipes for survival.This is a legacy from the 2/30th Battalion.Page 12 of the publication deals with the topic of compassion. A series of topics are covered throughout the book: mateship, communication, courage, resourcefulness, health, self-esteem, faith, survival, home and family, and getting on with life. The material in the chapter on compassion is something which seems to be lacking in the debate about whether Australians ought to support the views espoused by the leader of the One Nation Party and the policies which, it seems, eventually will give effect to them. The chapter is subtitled `A passion, a love for your fellow man' and contains the following quotes:Showing kindness to people you did not know. That was important. If they were down and out and you didn't know them, you must approach them and try to comfort them.Another former POW said:The Chinese were of great assistance—they were wonderful. At times they just gave stuff away when they had so little themselves.A third POW from the 2nd/30th said:I think back to the times when some of the risks that some of the Malays and Chinese ran to help us. At different times we were working on jobs near them—before we went up north to Burma—and some of them would bring out a big container they used to carry rice in. They'd bring out extra and give to some of the fellows, you know. Those people had a good heart.Another said:I suppose that compassion involves being prepared to listen to other people's points of view and respecting those, particularly when we were prisoners and living in close proximity. It became vital to consider other people's likes and dislikes, their needs, and it is surprising how close we became in that regard.Finally:Some people sort of live in their own little world. Quite self interested, self centred, and it's pretty hard to shake. Many people did change, particularly when they saw the people who came back from `F' Force. Just a mess. Open wounds, skinny, pus—the whole lot of us just broke down and sobbed. Sort of drove home to them that there were people worse off than themselves. A newspaper called the North Shore Times covers much of my electorate and also the electorate of North Sydney. I am very privileged to write a column for this newspaper every week. As occurs with local members, the newspaper reports things you say from time to time, things you believe in, and views that you enunciate—whether they reflect the views of your electorate or whether they be things you believe yourself as a matter of principle. In my case, I try to enunciate to my electorate the values and principles of liberalism.I have recently written some regular columns in the North Shore Times which are my observations of the evolution of One Nation. Without reiterating all of them here, I have said that most of the people that support One Nation are decent people. In fact, I suspect that quite a few are those who lived through this generation that will be receiving the benefits of the gold card that the government is extending. I also said that I felt that there were some people supporting the views of One Nation who perhaps did not have good intentions and that there are some behind One Nation who are manipulating and advising them who may have intentions for this nation which would create the circumstances that led many Australians—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I am loath to interrupt the honourable member for Bradfield, but I do remind you that the bill before the House is the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 . While I sympathise with your desire to talk about the subject you are on, it is not really relevant to the bill.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise it is a career limiting move to defer from your judgment, but I think that what is happening to our nation at the moment has everything to do with this bill. It has everything to do with the people who, quite deservedly, receive this gold card. I would ask that you hear me out.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will listen very carefully, but I do say to you that the standing orders of this place direct that comments should be germane to the bill. I realise that this is often very observed in the breach, but I think it is about time we started to observe the standing orders a little more carefully. Carry on, and I will listen to you most carefully.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—The North Shore Times , which is read by many veterans in my electorate who will be receiving the gold card, quoted me as follows:Courage, compassion and conscience were needed to deal with the rise of One Nation, Bradfield MP Brendan Nelson told a Chatswood Chamber of Commerce lunch on Tuesday.I went on to say that I believe that the member for Oxley has been a lightning rod for grief and anger that many Australians feel about changes in their country that are difficult to understand and even more difficult to accept. But when politicians allow facts to bow to bias, then our whole nation is vulnerable. If we simply follow populist opinion, then truth is in fact one of the first casualties.I have never called anybody a racist. I believe that those who use the term diminish the currency of whatever argument it is that they have to put. The men who served in the 2nd/30th, relating their experiences of working with many of other races, clearly were not those that anybody would describe as having racist views.Last week I had the privilege of seeing Reverend Fred Nile on television—he is someone with whom I do not always agree—debating Mr David Oldfield, the senior adviser to, possibly one day to become the replacement for, the member for Oxley. Mr Oldfield was denying that One Nation's policies had racist undertones. Reverend Nile was quite rightly saying, `Well, buttons are being pushed which are unleashing forces—whether you like to accept it or not—which are along those lines.' I have received some quite offensive mail in recent times because of the views I have taken in criticising the policies espoused by One Nation. I would certainly not personally criticise the member for Oxley, or indeed anyone else for that matter. I would like to read a couple of the letters I have received because I think they are very relevant to what is happening. Some people need to be protected from themselves, including myself at times, so I will not name the authors of these letters. They did name themselves. They said:Dr Nelson, I read your `anti-white racist' slurs levelled against the only ardent patriotic politician we have in Australia today, namely Pauline Hanson.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Again I am loath to interrupt the member for Bradfield, but he talked about needing protection. He might need protection from me if he continues to stray so widely from the bill. Other contributors to this debate, both last night and this morning, have followed the content of the bill. I do encourage you to limit your remarks to the content of the bill.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a sad place when you cannot give voice to something that is so important. I know that there are other forums of the House for me to do this, but I am sorry that I cannot read this into the Hansard .10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Perhaps you should read that particular bit. But, by the time you have finished, you should return to the bill before the chair.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—Yes, I will make some comments about the Returned Services League when I have finished. The letter continues:I must say how interesting to see and hear all the `TRAITORS' like yourself coming out in defence of the violent, drug smuggling and dealing, `Asian slime' that has been brought into our once peaceful country by the despicable Labor government of the MONGRELS Keating, Hawke, Evans, Whitlam, Grassby, and the new ultimate `turncoat' and `traitor' Howard and yourself.Because of this volatile `explosive' mixture of ALIENS we now have in this country a crime and violence outbreak unparalleled in Australia's history, with Asian `GANGS' being formed to intimidate and harass, and attack decent clean living white citizens, with their home Invasions, drug smuggling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, rape, prostitution, theft, robberies, et cetera.The pompous do-gooders and POLITICAL CORRECT like yourself obviously want this `crime wave', and `ethnic CONFLICT' to escalate and continue, which makes you just another scumbag of a politician we will have to have `REMOVED' at the next election by voting for PAULINE HANSON. I am reassured at least that this particular constituent says he will not vote for me.It is worth coming back to the bill and what it is about. It is worth, for the generation who are going to benefit from this government measure, to remember what those values and beliefs were all about. These men and women went to war. They did so because there was a threat to world peace and, I would suggest, the survival of humanity. These men and women went to war to fight against tyranny, to preserve freedoms that were threatened by a leader of a European nation who had ascended on the shoulders of nationalism, of patriotism and of exploiting the vulnerable, the poor, the alienated, the disenfranchised. It is difficult to imagine that such circumstances would ever eventuate in Australia, but it is not impossible. I think Reverend Fred Nile and others are right. I know that they are right when, whether it is intentional or otherwise—I believe on the part of some people in One Nation it is intentional—these views are unleashed. There is a dark side in all of us, from Mother Teresa down. For some it is closer to the surface than in others, but One Nation and some who support it are appealing to that dark side. I would urge the RSL and the good men and women who lead it to really have a sober look at what is happening in our country and to remind us in contemporary Australia of the values and principles that underwrite the 2nd/30th and so many others like them. Also in recent times churches have not been frightened to venture into the political arena. That is something I am consistent about. I believe they have a right to do so but in an informed manner. I think they also ought to be making some observations about what is happening and arguing that Australians of decent, fair principles represented and embodied by the 2nd/30th be imbued in contemporary Australians and that they remember that when they go to the polling booths. (Time expired)11:12:005252Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you were absolutely right to draw the attention of the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) to the standing orders. Whilst I appreciate the remarks he made—in fact I quite enjoyed listening to them, and I certainly appreciate his compliments to the Reverend Fred Nile, who is the national president of the Christian Democratic Party, of which I am the parliamentary leader in this place—it still ought to be brought to the attention of members that they just cannot come in here and speak about anything under the guise of speaking on a particular bill. It is clearly wrong and you were absolutely right to draw his attention to it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for McPherson might follow his own admonition and speak to the content of the bill.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is exactly what I plan to do. When we do speak about veterans' affairs, we do have broad-ranging debates, but there has to be some limit. The Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 is a bill that is supported by all, I would think, in this House.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It's a good bill.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—It is a very good bill indeed and will make the gold card available to an additional 50,000 World War II veterans. It is interesting to note that the average age of World War II veterans is now 76½ years. So they are all getting on, as it is so quaintly put. It is a pity that, in some respects, with some of them getting on, some of them are still having difficulty with establishing their rights to what I believe are their entitlements. That is one of the question marks that hangs over this bill. Some of those points and some of those concerns have already been raised by members who have contributed to this debate, but I want to raise those issues again. Obviously the measure is welcomed. Clearly it is going to cost a lot of money, but I think that the vast majority of Australians believe that it is indeed money well spent.However, a number will miss out, so while the policy has made a lot of people happy, unfortunately it has also made a lot of people unhappy. I take the point that the opposition spokesman, the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), made in his contribution to this debate last night when he said that he under stood that there was some disquiet about how the announcement was made at the time. That issue has been canvassed and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) has addressed that issue.I do not hold the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) or the Minister for Veterans' Affairs responsible, but certainly at least the press did not understand, for one reason or another, exactly what the intention was, and so the message went out to the veterans community that all World War II veterans were going to get the gold card. Of course, that was not the case. Those who missed out are now expressing their concerns and I must say that I am sympathetic to those concerns.This is a serious case of discrimination against a large number of veterans, particularly those who were enlisted but were not sent overseas. There are a large number of those veterans. I understand that considerable expense would be involved in extending the gold card to those veterans. However, a number of people—and I think all members in this place have had quite a number—have contacted me to discuss their concerns about it.Many people volunteered, enlisted and served during the war but, through no choice of their own, they ended up serving in places where they now find that their service is not valued to the extent that they will be entitled to the gold card. Some people who were sent overseas probably faced no more danger, in terms of the service they gave in some areas, than those who remained at home. So I believe that there is a case for recognising and treating the service equally for those who volunteered but who nevertheless were not posted overseas. There are a large number of them.Another issue is those who served in Korea. This issue has already been raised in the debate. They were all on active service and would comply with the definition for qualification for the extension of the gold card. Where they are over 70 years of age, they would comply precisely. So I would like to speak on behalf of the Korean veterans who are over 70 years of age and ask the government to consider extending the same benefit to them. There are also probably a small number of Vietnam veterans who are now over 70 years of age and who should also be treated equally with World War II veterans.The other two groups causing some ongoing concern in the veterans community, certainly in the context of the extension of the gold card, are Allied and Commonwealth veterans. For some of them it was a case of the same war but the wrong air force, army or navy. As it turns out, those who served in the air force were probably most affected. There are many anomalies here, and I think the government needs to undertake to look at each one and make some case-by-case determinations about eligibility for the gold card on behalf of these people.Some Australians, through no fault of their own, were posted to RAF units. They were in the Australian air force but their overseas service during the war was with the RAF. It appears from the cases that I have reviewed that those people do not qualify for the gold card—and perhaps the minister might clarify that particular issue. I am sure this is not the first time the question has been asked. That is the issue of Australian citizens who were Australian citizens at the time they enlisted, but ended up serving with Commonwealth and Allied forces. The question on that issue is: do they qualify for the gold card? A number of them have been told that, for various reasons, they do not.The other more difficult issue for the government, and one that really has to be resolved satisfactorily, is the question of those who were non-Australians at the time they enlisted but who served with Commonwealth and Allied forces. Many of those people have ended up in Australia and have been Australian citizens for many years. But in a sense they remain second-class veterans within Australia, despite the fact that they are Australian citizens.I realise that the argument about this has been to say, `They were not Australians at the time and they didn't serve in the Australian defence force of the time, and therefore it is up to their countries of origin to take up their cause.' That is all right—it is a neat way of sidestepping it—but it fails to recognise that they are now Australian citizens, and have probably been so for 50 years in some cases, and they are not being treated in the same way as their mates and friends down at the RSL club.You can brush that aside, sweep it under the carpet, and say that it is not our problem, but the fact is that it is a problem. It is a problem that the government could well look into and perhaps attempt to resolve. Talking about resolving it by negotiating with the countries concerned is one way of doing it, but clearly all of those countries—and this certainly applies to the British government—have refused to be involved in any resolution of the problem.It really comes back to being a problem for Australia with these Australian citizens who served in that way and now find that they do not qualify for the gold card, although they may have served in exactly the same theatres of war during the Second World War as Australians who do qualify. It seems to me that we need to look at this situation. It is clear that it is not possible to convince the nations for whom these people served to accept full responsibility, but I do not believe that we can continue to ignore them any longer.I have received numerous letters on this, but I will just refer to one from a constituent of mine in Currumbin. He is 78 years of age. He is now an Australian citizen. During World War II he was a British citizen. He served in the merchant navy. When his ship left Hong Kong and travelled to Perth, it was commandeered by Australia and he served in Australian operational areas during the war. After the war, he was awarded the 1939 to 1945 star—the war medal—and the Pacific Star, and after the war he even got an Australian defence service home loan but, under the current regulations, he does not get the gold card. There are dozens, hundreds and maybe even thousands of people in similar situations. These anomalies have to be ironed out, because I believe that those people should qualify for the gold card, and the government should look at them on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, the government could probably broadly identify people who are in that category.At this point I should place on record my support for the report tabled yesterday on the implementation of health policy for the veterans community in rural and remote areas. I note the Minister for Veterans' Affairs mentioned that many veterans choose to live in such areas. I am pleased the report acknowledges that there are in fact still gaps in some services, and I am pleased to note that the government has a number of initiatives planned to address these.I am a little disappointed that I have not had the departmental briefing I requested about a month ago from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It is really a bit late now, so it does not matter, but I would like to put the concern on record that as a member of a minor party, and as the leader of that party, I would have thought that the minister might have taken that request seriously. However, it has not been forthcoming, and I suppose I can live with that. I want to raise a few other matters in the remaining time that is available to me. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, they are on veterans' affairs and directly related to this legislation. In that sense, I would like to raise concerns on behalf of sailors who served in ships of the British Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve from 1955 to 1960.I suppose this is what you could describe as another `festering sore' within the veterans community. What is the government doing about it? Apparently, it is fighting tooth and nail to avoid doing anything. Again, we are dealing with Second World War veterans here, with an average age of 76½ years. I suppose if the government dithers on this for much longer the problem will just go away, and maybe that is the intention with some of these arguments that are continuing with particular groups of people.I understand that a former Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Sir Richard Peek, has asked the Prime Minister to intervene in this matter. I would support that request. It is obviously, like most of the disagreements that we have in these veterans issues, a disagreement about the nature of the duties that some of these people performed, but it in fact down-values the service of these navy personnel who were serving in the theatre of war but, by virtue of their duties, were offshore. They were engaged in military navy type activities but, for some obscure reason—I suppose, in a sense, for obvious reasons—they did not come under enemy fire, or in that particular case the enemy did not have the suitable weapons to return the navy's fire. But they were engaged in a general sense, as I understand it, in that particular war, and I believe they have a very good case. As I said, I hope the Prime Minister will have a close look at that.I now raise the issue I have raised consistently in this place on behalf of veterans for probably most of the 8½ years that I have been here, and that is the treatment of the disability pension. I raised this matter with the previous government; I have raised it with the current government. The current government was elected on the platform of carrying out a review of this issue.The review went on and on, and finally the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman), who has responsibility in this case, has advised me that she has now received a report on this matter which acknowledges the difficulty of this issue and the underlying concerns of some veterans. On 19 June I finally received yet another letter on behalf of numerous constituents that I have written about. It states:Thank you for your letter . . . about . . . the Department of Veterans' Affairs Disability Pension.The Government is mindful of the community's debt of gratitude to those injured while serving in the armed forces. The extension of the "Gold Card" to all Australian World War II veterans aged 70 and over, with qualifying service, reflects this.Yes, it does. However, the letter then goes on to state:The Government acknowledges that there have been some longstanding concerns in the veterans' community about differences in the treatment of veterans' entitlements between the veterans' income security system and the Social Security system. No decision was taken in the recent Budget to alter the current Social Security means test treatment of Disability Pension.That is disgraceful, and the government should be condemned because of that statement. The veterans community needs to know that, despite all the rhetoric we are hearing in here about concerns for our veterans, this particular element of extreme and unfortunate discrimination continues. The Minister for Social Security goes on in the letter to state:However, both my colleague, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, and I are aware that this is a very sensitive issue for many veterans. The issues are complex and therefore we are giving this matter our very full and careful consideration.Those are hollow words from the minister—hollow, meaningless and worthless words. When is the government going to do something about this shameful discrimination against a particular group of veterans? I challenge it to do something. Forget the rhetoric, forget the assurances—we have had that from this government and the previous government for years—and do something about it!Finally, I want to raise another issue tangential to veterans' affairs—and I am pleased that the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) is in the House because, in a sense, like the previous matter I raised, it crosses portfolio barriers to some extent—and that issue is the Vietnam end of war list.Vietnam veterans continue to be concerned about this matter. Again, it is a matter that the RSL has asked the Prime Minister to intervene in. I know we will be told—and I understand—that this is a complex issue. Many of the issues that require decisions by ministers are complex. Incidentally, the previous issue I raised is not a complex issue, but governments like to see things that they might have to spend money on to fix up as complex issues.But this issue, at least in that sense, is not complex. In fact, it is also relatively simple. I have many ex-service constituents and Vietnam veteran constituents, some of whom, of course, are close friends, but one particular constituent wrote to me about the situation and expressed it very well. He said that Major General Phillips, who is the President of the RSL, wrote to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, Mrs Bishop, and, in part, said that `our national executive is of the view that those recommended for the MC, DFC or MM should have been treated together'; that this would have been consistent with the practice for Australian and imperial medals; and that they should have been offered the medal of gallantry. This particular constituent, to his credit, has received the MG. He was recommended for an MC and he has received the MG. So he has got no particular axe to grind; on the contrary, he is going into bat for some of his colleagues—other rank colleagues—who, instead of getting an award at the same level as he has received, are getting a commendation—that is, no medal, no initials after their name. What sort of treatment is that for those other rank veterans who have been recommended for gallantry?Again, I recognise that there are some complexities in this issue—that it was all thrown into turmoil by the fact that the previous imperial medal award system has gone out the window and, therefore, it becomes difficult. But there is, as the RSL has pointed out and as I understand it, a way forward. And that is simply to treat these people who are recommended for an MC, DFC or MM as the same group of people and award them the MG. I do not know if the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) will be able to answer that question in his response. I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel is at the table and it is an issue with which she will be very familiar. She may take the time, at some stage, to answer this question, not so much for my benefit, although she might well see it that way, but for the benefit of this constituent and the many other Vietnam veterans who are very concerned about this. In fact, one Western Australian MG recipient has, I think, gone so far as to say that he was seriously considering not taking the medal, because of his concern about the treatment of other rank veterans who he thought should also be entitled to an MG.11:33:005256Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—It is not often in this place that I rise to quote from Labor prime ministers but Ben Chifley, at the conclusion of the Second World War, said: Nothing can fully repay the debt we owe them, nor can history record in adequate terms their deeds from the black days that followed September 1939, and December 1941, until this moment.This has, of course, been a bipartisan approach largely observed over the last 50 years whereby a grateful nation is prepared to repay the debt that we owe to those who risked so much to ensure that our generation can enjoy the freedom, stability and way of life that has made Australia the envy of the world.This is a very important initiative and I think it is vital that we congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 . This bill ensures that a further 50,000 veterans will become eligible for full health care entitlement from 1 January 1999, at a time in their lives when this assistance will be of very great benefit. It is interesting to note that half of the beneficiaries are expected to be veterans who currently do not receive any pension or benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. So this is not a reshuffle of entitlements, this is a genuine extension of access to the gold card to people who are not currently within the system, and it will provide them with much needed care. Everyone knows that ex-service organisations have long campaigned for this change and I believe that it is a real credit to this government that, at last, people in this situation will now have access to the gold card.Other members have pointed out that the average age of World War II veterans is now over 76 years and, therefore, most World War II veterans will meet the age criterion. Some people have asked, `Why is it that the extension of the gold card will take effect from 1 January 1999?' It is clear that, given the large number of additional people who will now be eligible, it will take some time administratively to work out eligibility and to implement the new system.This is an important change. It demonstrates that this government believes very strongly that, although more than 50 years have elapsed since the end of the Second World War, we ought to continue to repay our debt and upgrade the benefits available to veterans as they approach a stage in their life when they need greater assistance.I have also been very pleased with the way in which this government has been prepared to assist veterans on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland—an area of Australia which I am very pleased and proud to have the opportunity to represent. It is a couple of years ago now since the Minister for Veterans' Affairs attended at Maroochydore to open the Veterans' Affairs office. This office has been of tremendous assistance to local ex-service men and women. There are some 14,000 veterans on the Sunshine Coast who will continue to benefit from the presence of this office in our local community. This is the government taking services to regional Australia; and the presence of the Veterans' Affairs office in Maroochydore has been a focus for ex-service groups which ensures that local people can access this area of government in their own community. I believe that that is very important.It should also be noted that, at that time, when the office was opened, the Veterans Advice Network services and the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service were combined in the one purpose-built office with ramp access and disabled parking for veterans. Other offices have also been opened recently by the minister and by the government, indicating that, far from taking the view that the former Labor government at one stage advanced—namely, that the Department of Veterans' Affairs ought to be rolled into the Department of Social Security—this government is expanding rather than contracting services to those who have made such a contribution to the quality and standard of life that we have in Australia.The government continues, therefore, to give timely access to fair compensation. It delivers innovative and coordinated health care services, and it stimulates the community's commitment to commemorating the service of veterans. The bill currently before the chamber, indeed, is another building block in providing services to these people to whom we owe so much.The honourable member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) referred to the plight of British Commonwealth and allied veterans and, certainly, other groups who would like to have access to the gold card. The minister has said that the government will continue to look at the situation of other groups of veterans who would like to receive the gold card, but to whom at this stage it has not been possible to extend the benefits.In my own office, quite a substantial number of Commonwealth and British veterans have contacted me. Many of them have been in this country for more than 50 years, and some of them, in fact, were here prior to the war. On occasions people even attempted to enlist in the Australian armed forces, but they were put into the UK armed forces instead. The minister has stressed that the government will continue to look at the possibility of extending the gold card eligibility, and I, therefore, would like to commend him for this.It would be very interesting to know just what it would cost to extend the gold card to veterans from the Commonwealth and Allied services who, over the last 50 years, have lived in Australia and continued to pay their taxes and be good citizens. Of course, their service during the Second World War also contributed to the freedom, stability and way of life that we as a nation have. It ought to be recognised and ought not to be forgotten that service in Allied forces was part of a coordinated effort by the free world to repel the enemy.The minister does point out that, generally speaking, it is the responsibility of the country in whose armed forces a person served during war to provide repatriation benefits. I do not think anyone would argue with that. However, I believe that British Commonwealth and Allied veterans are a special case worthy of consideration, given the fact that many of them have been in the country for many years.I listened also to what the honourable member for McPherson said about a large number of other groups who would like to gain access. The government, again, would like to do something about that, but it ought to be recognised that this particular bill extends the expenditure of the Commonwealth by a figure of more than half a billion dollars over a period of four years. It is obviously something that the government has to look at very carefully and very closely. Half a billion dollars is a lot of money and, while we would like to make other people eligible, at the end of the day we really have to look at what we can afford to do.The gold card will provide treatment to veterans as a private patient with choice of doctor and other benefits. I must say that, given the predicament of many of these people, it will be very welcome. In fact, the financial impact will be $70 million in 1998-99, $153.8 million in 1999-2000, $145.3 million in the year 2000-01 and $132.9 million in the year 2001-02. The government must have responsible economic management and, while we would like to extend benefits, there clearly is a limit.There has also been some comment over the fact that we have an age limit of 70 years and that veterans who are younger than 70 years will not have access to the gold card. Again, the government had to make an on balance judgment, and it was felt that, given the average age is now more than 76 years, most veterans would benefit. When the younger veterans attain the age of 70 years, they clearly could be considered for the gold card.The minister's administration of this portfolio has been quite proactive over the years and he has gone out into the veterans community in the same way as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) did when he was shadow minister. The minister has also visited the sites of overseas spheres of conflict to indicate that the government very strongly supports the right of veterans to be recognised by the community.This is an initiative of the government which has received very strong support and it indicates that, as a government, we are particularly interested not only in young people—and we have obviously created the economic situation where employment will grow and where many people will get the opportunity to put one foot on the employment ladder—but also in older Australians, people who have worked and people who now, of course, need assistance from the general community.This package is part of a $1 billion funding boost for the aged. It is an initiative of the Howard government which has been very strongly supported throughout the community. The states do not hesitate to criticise the federal government. This decision will be fully funded by the federal government and that the states will save some $80 million per annum, or $323 million over the next five-year period of the Australian health care agreement, because the Commonwealth will meet costs which previously would have been the responsibility of the states.I strongly support this piece of legislation which shows the government is listening to what the community is saying and responding in a very positive way. It is all about the fact that we are a government which consults, a government which is prepared to take into consideration the views of interest groups representing the veterans community, and that is why we have received unanimous support, particularly from ex-service organisations, for this very important extension of the gold card which builds on the earlier widening of eligibility for this card.As I said before, some other people would like to have access to the gold card as well, but at the end of the day the government must take a balanced approach and what we do must be consistent with financial responsibility. The minister will continue to look at applications for access from other groups, and I believe the concerns raised by the member for McPherson will be addressed by the government from time to time as we move forward.There was widespread backing from editorial writers when the announcement was made to extend the gold card to an extra 50,000 veterans who previously were not eligible for it. It is interesting that the Canberra Times, the Age, the Financial Review, the Courier-Mail and many other papers which have not always supported the government were fulsome in their praise for the extension of the gold card to people who would not previously have had access to it.It has been a priority of the government and it is another promise which the government has delivered. It shows that we are serious about our election commitments. It indicates that when we seek a mandate from the Australian people, we are prepared to deliver, unlike those opposite when they were in government, who were prepared to lie, rob and cheat their way into office. They would do anything and say anything to gain the support of the Australian people. Once they got elected, they shredded those promises because, at the end of the day, they felt they were not able to afford them. When this government makes a promise, we deliver on our promise. The bill that is currently before the chamber is a very clear indication that this government is prepared to do the right thing by veterans, to whom we owe so much.As I was saying, the new gold card arrangements will come into effect on 1 January 1999. That is not very far away; it is a matter of about six months. Various people have asked me questions concerning eligibility for the gold card. I have been asked: is it necessary for there to be a war-caused disability for entitlement to the card? The answer to that is no. There is no need for the injuries to be war caused and the gold card will be available regardless of whether or not the disabilities are war caused.Some people have asked: will the gold card just arrive through the mail or is there a need to apply for it? Some people may not need to apply for the gold card, but some people may. There is a gold card hotline and we would encourage any veteran who believes that he or she may be eligible for the gold card to contact the hotline or his or her local member of parliament, because it is absolutely important that all of those veterans who are entitled to the gold card gain access to it. The benefits contained in this bill will not extend to people if they do not actually receive the gold card to which they are entitled.I have been concerned that only about half of those eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card have actually applied for it, and this is even before the government's extension of the Commonwealth seniors health card to another 220,000 retired Austral ians—a wonderful decision in the budget. So it is important that people who may be eligible for the gold card check that eligibility and make sure that they are able to obtain it and access it from the date from which they have this new entitlement—that is, 1 January 1999.Some people have said that they may have World War II qualifying service but do not get a service pension and they wonder whether they would be eligible for the gold card. The answer is that this is not means tested. If a person is aged over 70, he or she will be eligible for the gold card and under these new arrangements financial circumstances will not affect entitlement to the gold card. Some people have said that maybe there ought to be a means test. The government very strongly believes that we owe a debt to all veterans in this situation, regardless of their circumstances. This is not a social security measure; this is a recognition of what we as Australians collectively owe those people who went to war and risked everything. I will not apologise for the fact that all veterans aged over 70 who come within the criteria will be able to receive the gold card.The gold card is a gold coloured repatriation health card for all conditions, issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The card will enable the holder to access the full range of repatriation health care benefits. The health care benefits include private patient hospital care, choice of doctor, pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate, optical care, physiotherapy, dental care, podiatry care and products, and chiropractic services, for all medical conditions irrespective of whether or not they are war caused.The bill before the chamber is a very positive initiative. It is a recognition that the government appreciates that we owe a lot to those people who joined our country's services, people who were prepared to risk their health and their life to make sure that Australia remained the wonderful and free country that it is. It is an important step. We are moving forward to provide new benefits to veterans at a time in their lives when they need those benefits. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the government general ly are entitled to the congratulations of the Australian community because of this excellent new initiative. I commend the bill to the chamber. (Time expired)11:53:005260Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—All members of this House are conscious of the great debt which we as Australians owe to our veterans, whatever particular conflict they served in. That is reflected in the fact that all governments in this parliament since World War I have recognised the service of our veterans. The creation of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the various forms which that has taken over the years, and the various initiatives and benefits which all governments have extended to our veterans indicate the degree of support which their cause enjoys in this parliament.Consistent with that, the opposition fully supports the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 which is now before the House. This bill continues the history of providing support to veterans, including gold card benefits. The benefits were first introduced by the then Labor government in 1973, when surviving World War I veterans were issued with the gold card. In 1974, ex-prisoners of war were also offered the opportunity of using the gold card. Ex-service women, mainly nurses who incurred danger in World War II, were included in the group in 1987.The gold card entitles veterans to 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. As other honourable members have indicated, access to the card is not means tested and assistance is not restricted to an illness or incapacity that was part of their war service. So this is a very substantial benefit and one which is expensive to the community. The average cost of this initiative is $4,000 per year per veteran, but it is an entirely appropriate contribution to make to the health of people who are now over 70 years—which they need to be in order to be eligible—and who are likely to be experiencing a decline in their general standard of health. The gold card will therefore make a significant improvement to their quality of life.There are some issues though which arise from the way in which the government has defined the group who are eligible for gold card status. Many veterans in my electorate who served in British and Allied forces have contacted me and my office to indicate their concern that those groups are not included in the gold card ambit. There are 100,000 or so surviving World War II veterans in Australia who do not meet the requirement of having served in the Australian forces. These veterans and mariners served in the forces of British and Allied countries and many of them later migrated to Australia, some quite soon after the war during the substantial period of migration from Britain and Ireland. They have made significant contributions to the Australian community in the years since World War II following their migration to this country. They have paid taxes and they have been part of our community. Many of them have come to see themselves as entirely Australian citizens and I think they often had an expectation that the benefits applicable to Australian veterans would also flow to them.We must remember the very close association between the United Kingdom and Australia which applied in the years following the war. That continues to this day, but it perhaps takes a slightly different form to what it did in those early years of migration to Australia from the United Kingdom following World War II. In those days, our constitution referred to `British subjects'. A requirement for membership of this House and for voting in Australian elections was that that person be a British subject. The requirement of Australian citizenship was only introduced some years later in the 1970s and 1980s when the Australia Act was introduced. Those who migrated to this country from the UK in the period following the war very much believed that the two communities were legally and historically interlinked and that that would extend to Australian benefits.While we retain that very strong association and historical link with the United Kingdom, there are now substantial differences in the legal entitlements of people who served in the Australian forces and those who served in the Allied forces, including those of the United Kingdom. Those UK veterans—and there are nearly 100,000 of them now—are excluded from the gold card provision. It would be very tempting to include those people within the provisions of the gold card service. That would be at a substantial cost to the taxpayer, but that is not the only issue to be considered here. The cost is important, but what is also important is the impact this would have on the position of Australian servicemen contrasted with the position of Allied servicemen. I think we have to be very conscious of the fact that each and every country owes a substantial debt to its own service personnel. Those veterans who served in a country's forces during armed conflict are able to claim a special link to that country, and the country has a substantial obligation to ensure that those veterans are appropriately provided for, notwithstanding that the veterans may have moved in the years following the war.Australia as a country has always honoured that commitment. It has done so in a bipartisan way and with the substantial support of Australian governments and the Australian community. Other countries have not always seen fit to provide for their veterans in quite the same way. Indeed, many of those British and Allied service personnel receive only minimal benefits from their own country's government. It is to that end that we must look at the relationship between those respective governments and their veterans now living in this country. Only some 5,500 British veterans living in Australia currently receive a British war pension, and only a handful of veterans receive any pension from Canada, the former Czechoslovakia, Malta, New Zealand and Poland, to name just some of the other countries that fought with Australia in World War II. As you can see, the contribution from those countries to their now Australian veterans is minimal, and I think that is where we must look for some improvement in this condition.The United Kingdom government, along with other allied governments—but principally the UK government because of the numbers concerned here—must look to their own benefit provisions and examine the ways in which they look at veterans' affairs and the debt they owe to their World War II veterans to see whether there is some way they can improve the services they offer to their veterans, who offered their lives in the service of their own countries and, as part of the British Commonwealth, contributed to a substantial combined effort to defeat Nazi expansionism in Europe and Japanese aggression in the Pacific theatre.I would like to take the opportunity to indicate to British veterans in my electorate that I think there are ways in which we can advance their position with respect to the UK government. We must bring to the attention of the United Kingdom government the plight of its veterans in their ageing years, when they make a substantial demand on health services, to ensure that the UK government does honour its obligation. Obviously there are some war service and disability pensions payable, but I believe that the example which the Australian government is showing by extending the gold card service to our World War II veterans should set an example to other countries to extend their own payments accordingly.I think this has to be seen as a parallel issue with the matter of British age pensions now being paid to those British age pensioners resident in Australia. While those pensions are paid from the UK, the United Kingdom government declines to index those pensions for inflation and, over the years, many British pensioners have seen the real value of their British age pension substantially eroded. This would be bad enough if it applied to all overseas British pensioners, but it applies only to British pensioners in those countries where there are a substantial number of British pensioners.In fact, if you are a British age pensioner in the United States you receive full indexation. If you are a British pensioner in a European country which is a member of the EEC, you receive full indexation. But if you are a British pensioner in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa—which, coincidentally, are those countries where the majority of British pensioners migrated to after the war—then the British government declines to pay you indexation and that denies those pensioners the real value of their pensions.Given that inflation is now quite low, the impact of that is less, but over the years many of those pensioners have seen the purchasing power of their UK pension eroded and the Australian government has had to step in, under the means test arrangements, to partly top up those pensions. They are not able to do so to the full extent necessary, but I am sure it is a welcome contribution to those pensioners. It is a very real example, combined with the one which we have before us today, of the way in which the United Kingdom and other governments have failed to look after both their veterans and their age pensioners, and I think it is one which should be forcibly drawn to their attention.I will be looking at ways, in conjunction with those British war veterans and British age pensioners in my electorate, to take the fight to the UK government which, as we know, has recently changed. I am hoping that Tony Blair and his new government in England will take the opportunity to reconsider past decisions of previous UK governments and, in the light of the prosperity which now applies in the United Kingdom and the substantial revenue gains which that country has had in recent years, consider whether they can now see their way clear to fully honouring their proper obligations to United Kingdom war veterans and age pensioners. In both those areas I think there are grounds for expecting the governments of the United Kingdom and allied countries to reconsider their position, to examine their hearts and their consciences and to see whether they are serving their veterans in the way in which their veterans served their countries.Although I have only spoken on a limited aspect of the bill, it is certainly a very important one to people in my constituency, which contains a substantial number of UK veterans. In the last few weeks, since this issue became a public one following the government's decision to extend the gold card to a substantial group of Australian World War II veterans, they have again become conscious of the way their own former government treats them, and I think it is time for that issue to be reconsidered.I would like to conclude by again indicating my full support for this measure. It is one which, in a bipartisan position, the opposition and the current government—which was in opposition during the seventies when these benefits were first extended—fully support and which I am sure all Australians will want to see extended as widely as the revenue position makes practicable.12:05:005262Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—I do not intend to take up my full 20 minutes in this debate. I have listened with interest to many contributions on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 , and I do not think it would serve this House for me to repeat the things that have been said. Nevertheless, I do want to come here and congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) for honouring a commitment that this government gave to the veterans of Australia.My area on the North Coast of New South Wales has a significant number of veterans who served during the Second World War, probably because it is a very pleasant place to retire. I have had the pleasure of welcoming the minister twice to Lismore to meet with the veterans community, and I know that they have appreciated that very much and they congratulate the minister for the very fact that he will come and listen to their concerns and the issues that they have as a veterans community and for the fact that they have an office of the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Lismore. I know that the minister has extended that across Australia so that the veterans are serviced by officers as much as possible in the regional communities.When I transferred from the state government to the federal government at the last election, one of the first things that was drawn to my attention by the organisations that represent the veterans was their desire for a gold card. I think they had lobbied for a number of years to have that gold card extended to Second World War veterans as it had been extended to First World War veterans in the past.Australia is a fortunate country in many ways. We probably tend to nitpick in this House from time to time about the services and the benefits that are provided to Australian citizens, and I dare say we all would like to extend further services, but Australia does look after its veterans and its elderly probably a lot better than many other countries. The veterans community has certainly been provided with services over the years that recognise the great effort they put in during that war.Many Australians today, particularly the younger ones, probably do not recognise the real threat that there was to Australia at that time. I was very young myself, but there are things indelibly printed on my mind from when I was only two or three years old. There was real concern in this nation about the threat of the Japanese invasion—it was so close. I know things that happened, and I remember very clearly, that showed the real concern of Australians that they were about to be invaded. If it had not been prevented, then the whole history of the world would have been changed. We can only muse on what might have become of the conditions that we enjoy in Australia today.There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who served in those forces and went through the horrors of war, particularly in some of the concentration camps that were too horrific to even contemplate, deserve all the support they can get from the Australian community. I know that in recent times both the former government and this government have endeavoured to educate the younger generation as to what these people actually did, so that we understand the efforts that were put in. I think both sides of politics should be congratulated for that.I know that there are sections of the veterans community that believe that this does not quite go as far as they would like. I recognise that, and I am sure that the minister does as well. There are certain quirks that arise that deny some people access to the gold card. For instance, this has been put to me by some veterans who never left Australia but were ordered to defend the northern areas of Australia. They did not come under enemy fire at that particular time. It was one of those quirks of fate, I suppose, that they were not ordered to go overseas; they were ordered to stay and defend Australia. I think they have a reasonable argument: they were in the services, they were available to be used by the Australian army and they could easily have been sent overseas. While they did not come under enemy fire at the time, they certainly were part of the whole defence of Australia. I do accept that we should look closely in the future at whether that benefit can be extended to those people.I note the comments by the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans). As I said, it really does show that Australia is ahead of many other countries in looking after its returned service people. There is no doubt that what he says is true. Veterans from other countries who served in other armies that helped defend against the enemies at that time, whether it was in Europe or the Pacific area, are not provided with the support that we provide in Australia. Australia is not a big nation. It is very difficult for us to provide pensions and support for people who defended other countries or helped to defend the world as they saw it at that particular time.It is sad that the British government is not prepared to extend its pensions to people who are now living in other countries. I certainly have examples of that in my electorate where people do not get the CPI benefits on their pensions. They are left in a tenuous position as far as trying to exist is concerned. In some instances, the method of payment is such that the Taxation Office says that they should be paying provisional tax because tax is not taken out of those benefits that are paid every month. There is no doubt in my mind that they have a real problem. Someone on a fairly low income who then has to find provisional tax, which more or less doubles the tax in that particular year, can find it extremely difficult, especially when they are 81 or 82 years old, to cover their medical expenses and all the living expenses that they need. I know that is not anything to do with this bill, but we should raise it and take note of it.There is no doubt that the gold card does give considerable support to veterans who served during the war. As other speakers have said, I know that many veterans are very grateful for the benefits that are available to them. Some veterans who have served in subsequent wars, such as the Malaysian campaign or Korea or Vietnam, say to me, `We hope we don't have to wait 54 years before we get some benefits.' I suppose that is a fair comment, but their predecessors did have to wait that long to get the gold card benefits.I know that some of the subsequent wars, in particular the Malaysian and Vietnam wars, were quite different from the major wars because they were what we might term `dirty wars' where you did not know who the enemy was. Some of them were subjected to modern warfare, which is quite a different situation, although my father-in-law suffered from mustard gas in the First World War so some of those weapons were available during those wars. The veterans from Korea, Malaysia and Vietnam should not be ignored. They served their country the same as everyone else did, genuinely believing, at the orders of the government, that they were defending the freedom and democracy we have in this country. So I think the least we can do is to try to support these people.I believe that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has certainly shown that he is prepared to go out there and improve the lot of veterans in Australia. While the government does take seriously the fact that we must be very cautious in the management of the economy and that we should make sure that we do not run into further debt, which will reduce the ability for us to provide these services in the future, the government has shown that it is prepared to branch out and give extra benefits to people who we believe are entitled to receive those benefits.I congratulate the minister. I believe that this is legislation the veterans have long been looking for. Certainly the veterans who are benefiting from it congratulate the government. I think that we should congratulate the minister on bringing this legislation before the parliament.12:15:005264Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I, too, will not take too much of the House's time in endorsing the sorts of comments the member for Page (Mr Causley) has so eloquently made about the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill. I do not think anyone could rightly oppose the extension of eligibility for essential health services to Australian veterans who are aged 70 or over and who have World War II qualifying service.I am a little concerned, however, that the government has not seen its way clear to extend this gold card to veterans from the Allied forces who are now resident in Australia. But more of that in a moment. As well, I have several other reservations about eligibility of some other vets who are currently excluded by the provisions of this bill.In his second reading speech, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) stated that this initiative, worth almost $500 million over four years, contains the most significant expansion of veterans benefits for many years. As the minister indicated in his statement to the House yesterday, the number of war veterans, war widows and dependants living outside major metropolitan areas and entitled to health care through the Department of Veterans' Affairs has increased from almost 107,000 to 108,500 from October 1996 to March this year. That is 32 per cent of all clients.I must record my praise for this minister for the effective and very proactive way he has supported the veteran community in a variety of ways. I was proud to chair the Calare Australia Remembers committee several years ago and was delighted at the impact that commemoration had on the community, especially the young. It really bridged the generations, and I am pleased the government and the minister have seen fit to continue that recognition of world war service and community contribution with the `Their Service—Our Heritage' scheme which is providing further recognition to many more in our community.Recently I was a guest at the Light Horse re-enactment when it travelled to Eugowra. Again, Veterans' Affairs took a large role in helping support that event. It is a pity this government and the last one were not more proactive in helping a community like Eugowra, and many others, retain banking services. The free market and deregulatory policies of this and the previous government, and their total adherence to competition policy, have all contributed to the process that has robbed smaller communities of these essential services. I hope the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on post offices extends to post office agencies and means that postal service deregulation is also off the agenda.But back to veterans' affairs. Again, I applaud the minister for his establishment of veterans services through Centrelink at Orange and through the New South Wales government access program at Oberon. In fact, Calare has obtained two of six such services established in regional New South Wales and I thank the minister for that impartial and fair assessment of the Calare veteran community's needs.These services are proving an outstanding success, from reports I have been receiving, and I know the RSL organisation and the veteran community are very grateful. Add to that the regular visits by DVA staff to RSL clubs in major centres to service the needs of veterans of all wars and their dependants, and the minister has most bases very effectively covered. He should reap the plaudits for that.I say `most bases' because there appears to be one outstanding exception in this particular bill. That relates to those veterans who served in the Allied forces. Since the announcement of this initiative in the budget, my office and no doubt those of others in this House have received numerous inquiries from World War II vets who served with Allied forces but are now Australian citizens.The legislation specifically provides for the extension of the gold card to Australian World War II veterans aged 70 and over with World War II qualifying service. Only those Allied veterans domiciled in Australia prior to their enlistment are covered by measures in this bill. I know other members in their contributions to this debate have covered this ground in some detail.Madam Deputy Speaker, this is regarded as very mean. I just hope that this bill is not tainted by meanness because the sentiments behind it deserve far more than that, given the generosity of the initiative. But it does leave a sour taste in some mouths when this scheme, I believe, should cover all those Allied servicemen who fought with and alongside Australians in the defence of Australia's interests and those of the Allied forces.Let me read from one submission I received from Mr David Harris of Orange. He says:Worthy citizens who have worked and fought for their countries have been robbed on their hard won rewards just because for various reasons they decided to end their days in another country. As far as Brits are concerned they miss out at both ends.Mr Harris assisted the Australians and the Allies to win World War II, and his contributory UK state retirement pension was frozen when he emigrated after the war. Surely a reciprocal agreement can be worked out for these veterans who helped in the common Allied cause. I think it was the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) who urged a rethink on this issue with British government involvement, and I add my suggestion that that rethink should occur—and occur soon.Another issue on which I have received submissions refers to the qualifying service requirements. The major test for qualifying service is that the veteran has, in operations against the enemy, incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy.Mr Phillip Davis writes to me that he signed up with the AIF prepared, as every soldier was, to serve in any nominated theatre of war. He served in Darwin and North-West Australia which, of course, came under attack during the war. However, Mr Davis has been informed he must have served in those areas prior to November 1943 to be eligible for the gold card. He argues, and I think quite reasonably, that this is not a reasonable cut-off point, in that attack was imminent at any time, and Mr Davis and his colleagues worked under the same threat and stress as many of those before November 1943, notwithstanding the enormous pressures and horror of actually being involved in attack by the enemy and in confrontation with the enemy. But, as he says, he was ready—and, in fact, so were his colleagues—for those sorts of pressures, and he too suffered many of the stresses that those who actually were in combat suffered. As he says, he appears to have been posted to the right place at the wrong time, and he wonders why he and his colleagues do not qualify. The minister has submissions from me on these matters, and I guess other members have had similar expressions of disappointment from those veterans, Australian and Allied, who do not qualify.In commending the government and the minister on this Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 , I urge the minister to sympathetically consider extending its coverage to the veterans who served our cause so bravely but who, through technicalities, miss out on a gold card in the evening of their life. I commend the bill to the House.12:22:005266West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—Honourable members will be aware that the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 extends full repatriation health care benefits, the gold card, to Australian World War II veterans aged 70 years or over with qualifying service from that conflict. I am very pleased to speak on this initiative as a member of the Howard-Fischer government and as the member for Bowman.The previous member for Bowman, whose parliamentary career culminated in a ministry in this very portfolio, did not see fit to grant an extension of the gold card to Second World War veterans. In fact, during his short time as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, there was never any mention of extending the gold card.SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—Is he running again?XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—Yes. I say to the veterans of my electorate, and to all Second World War veterans: however late, this government recognises the enormous contribution you have made to our country. We care; we care enough to extend the eligibility of the gold card to around 50,000 World War II veterans for the first time.In my electorate of Bowman, it is estimated that there are 382 extra veterans who will be eligible for the gold card for the first time. In my electorate, 382 veterans will now have access to the Department of Veterans' Affairs comprehensive health care arrangements under the repatriation private patient scheme. These arrangements include access to health care services such as private patient hospital care in both public and private hospitals, doctor of choice, pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate and a wide range of other services such as psychiatric, optical, physiotherapy, dental, podiatry and chiropractic services for all medical conditions. These 382 veterans in my electorate will receive the benefits of the gold card for all medical conditions, irrespective of whether the conditions resulted from their war service.The gold card also entitles veterans to transport to and from their medical treatment. These veterans are eligible, regardless of their income or assets. This government has reconfirmed its commitment to those who served this country in Australia's time of need by enlisting in the armed forces. These veterans endangered their lives and health, and probably suffered economic loss as a result.The Howard-Fischer government takes very seriously its duty to ensure that those who have served, together with their dependents, are properly cared for. The extension of eligibility for the gold card to World War II veterans has been high on the agenda for many members of the Returned Services League in my electorate, including the Cleveland, Capalaba, Manly-Lota and North Stradbroke Island sub-branches.The RSL applauded the government for its recognition of the contribution made by Second World War veterans, saying:Veterans of World War I received an automatic entitlement to the Gold Card 55 years after the end of that 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.Major General Peter Phillips, National President of the Returned Services League, was quoted in the Age of 28 April 1998 as saying:This is certainly the most significant achievement for the RSL, and indeed the whole veteran community, in many years. The new arrangements reflect the reality that, for older veterans, it is a futile exercise to attempt to differentiate between disabilities arising out of war service and those of old age.I met with veterans of the Redlands RSL sub-branch in Cleveland just last weekend. They are delighted that our government has extended the gold card to Second World War veterans. In fact, there have been few people who have actually opposed the extension of the gold card to Second World War veterans, 54 years after the end of that conflict. The government has received almost universal support for the decision. Even members of the Labor Party find it hard to criticise the move. In the words of a Western Australian ALP senator:In any budget that spends money like this one, there are things to be welcomed, and you should offer praise where it is due. Two praiseworthy ideas are the extension of the gold card to all World War II veterans, and the extension of the health care card to more self-funded retirees.As always, there were the cynics from the other side, those who said it would never happen. This quote is from the shadow minister for veterans' affairs on 17 June 1997:It is all right for the minister to go around the country and say that he is not regarding the gold card as being in the too hard basket. . . there is not going to be any change in the gold card. He knows it as well as I do. To start saying that he is in there fighting for them is just totally irrelevant . . . The shadow minister welcomed the extension on 28 May 1998. There has been some discussion in the House about whether the gold card should be further extended to include veterans from the Korean, Malayan and Vietnam conflicts, and all allied veterans. There are 12,000 Vietnam veterans and 8,000 Korea/Malaya veterans who already have the gold card. These veterans can be granted a gold card in circumstances where their individual level of war-caused disability, or their financial situation, is such that the issue of a gold card is warranted. They also have access to a white card to provide medical treatment for specific war-caused difficulties. However, I do not dismiss the reality that the Korean War followed very soon after the Second World War. These veterans must also be compensated for the effects of war service. The extension of entitlement to other veteran groups will remain under review by this government.There are a small number of veterans of other Commonwealth or allied forces who were domiciled in Australia immediately before their enlistment in those forces, and they will be eligible for the gold card. As I have personally advised my constituents, a veteran who feels he or she may qualify on these grounds should give a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding his or her enlistment with the application. However, the general principle agreed with other governments is that each country is responsible for war compensation for veterans of its own forces, irrespective of where they choose to live. This includes health benefits.As the Australian government, our prime responsibility is to veterans of the Australian Defence Force and Australian mariners. The Labor Party knows that the Australian repatriation system has only ever provided health benefits for veterans who served in the Australian forces. British and allied veterans do not currently qualify for disability pensions or medical treatment benefits from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. In fact, it was the shadow minister for veterans' affairs himself who stated:. . . it would be unsustainable to constantly extend the Gold Card to more and more groups. Apart from anything else, such an approach could soon endanger the continuation of the level of benefits enjoyed by current card-holders.There are some British and other Commonwealth veterans who receive a white card for reatment of specific disabilities as part of an agency arrangement. The Department of Veterans' Affairs pays treatment costs for these veterans and seeks reimbursement from the other governments. The card is issued as an administrative convenience.We have recognised the contribution of the British, Commonwealth and allied veterans in wartime and subsequently in Australia through their eligibility for the service pension. 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 now 54 years since the end of World War II, only those servicemen who enlisted at a very young age will have to wait until their 70th birthday to be eligible for the card. While legend has it that a small number enlisted at a very young age—in some instances as young as 14—I believe their numbers are extremely small. The average age of World War II veterans is 76 years.I welcome the extension of the gold card as just one of the many achievements of the Howard-Fischer government in the veterans' affairs portfolio. The Howard-Fischer government has provided greater eligibility to 10,500 veterans from 12 areas of overseas service who are now eligible for compensation payments, health care and concessional home loans.During the next four years, $164 million will be provided to link the war widows pension with average male weekly earnings. This means an increase of $6.80 per fortnight for around 100,000 war widows or widowers. Interest rates on defence service home loans have been reduced to 1.5 percentage points below the average market rate. Rates are now capped at 6.85 per cent to provide both savings and service home loan security.An amount of $1.7 million has been allocated to veterans organisations to help them employ additional advocates and speed applications through the Veterans' Review Board. We have provided special assistance to meet the needs of veterans in rural and remote areas. The statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) on the health policy for veterans in rural and remote communities outlined exactly how much has been done in this regard. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has opened more than 20 new offices around Australia.We have not forgotten our Korean veterans. A nominal roll of Korean veterans is under way—the first step towards a major study of the mortality of Korean veterans. We have provided $600 million over four years for direct purchase of hospital services formerly provided by the states and territories. We have increased the funding base of the Australian War Memorial by $2 million per annum for repair and maintenance of the Australian War Memorial buildings.This is just the tip of the iceberg. We owe a great debt to those whose lives were affected by war. I have great pleasure in commending the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 to the House on behalf of the veterans community of Bowman.12:34:005268Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I am pleased to be a part of this debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 . A number of members have spoken on this important initiative, and I do congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) on it. By way of background, the commencement date is 1 January 1999. It will apply to all veterans 70 years or over who have faced or incurred danger from hostile forces—that is basically the reference to qualifying service—during World War II. The proposal will benefit 50,000 people. The benefits include the provision of a health care card. It is fair to say that there are 260,000 veterans around Australia who already have the gold card. Apparently the measure is estimated to cost $500 million over four years, so it is a very substantial initiative costing a substantial amount of money.As we have heard from many members, when initiatives like these are taken sometimes there are those who are left out of the equation. It is unfortunate that that happens, because it immediately gives rise to concern about the inequity of granting this initiative to people based on those criteria I have mentioned while leaving out others who, it could be argued, are equally entitled to the card. For example, I had a letter from Mr Bill Wilson in my electorate which says:Nobody would begrudge these ageing people the advantage afforded in the evenings of their lives but it raises with me a question of principle in that in this nation there is a considerable number of Australian citizens either by birth or early adoption who served in other Allied forces and are not eligible for the gold card.In this case, Mr Wilson was from the United Kingdom but has been an Australian citizen for an awfully long time. He goes on to say:These citizens, ex British services for example, came here in large numbers shortly after the end of WW2, brought with them and contributed whatever skills they had at many levels, paid taxes and served to build the structure of Australian society.He goes on:Indeed it can be said that for those still surviving, most in their mid to late 70s, the whole of their working lives, perhaps 50 years or more, have been dedicated to Australia.He goes on to say:The British and other Allied countries offer by comparison much less or nothing to their WW2 veterans whether disabled or healthy and in reality to expect anything to be offered to a citizen of another country which has had the benefit of the whole of that person's life work and tax revenue is quite unrealistic.It can be argued that this group is subject to disadvantage and discriminatory treatment and to add some bitterness to the pill will be supporting the proposed benefits to others through the taxes they pay.He, in my view, as the member for Page said, makes a strong case for people in his situation, and there are many in that situation. When these anomalies arise, it is important to look at them to see what can be done to address them.It is not always possible in a major spending initiative as this one is to immediately take a broad brush and let the exemptions go, but, at the same time, when introducing a measure like this, those who are left out of the basket can, in reality, feel quite justifiably ignored by the system. But it does not stop there. There are other areas, particularly in relation to qualifying service provisions, where anomalies arise, and they spread into other fields of conflict. Those anomalies and inconsistencies that seem to pervade this system do cause a great deal of distress to other veterans, and I refer to the veterans who fought in the Malayan Emergency.A constituent of mine, Mr John Carlyon, was the secretary-treasurer of the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve Association. Mr Carlyon was one of the naval personnel involved in that conflict. He was a radio electoral mechanic on the HMAS Anzac. He has worked tirelessly with this association in his struggle to ensure that former shipmates receive the recognition they arguably deserve. The situation is that members of the navy who were involved in that particular conflict feel that they have been given a very raw deal in relation to their arguments for qualifying service.Drawing these anomalies forward is important. In a measure like this, we need to make some comparisons between the factors that arise to give eligibility to one group and the factors that seem to deny eligibility to another group. Admittedly, this group of people did not serve in World War II, and we are talking about that, but I referred in my opening remarks to the question of incurred or faced danger qualifying service provision. When you look at that and then look at the inconsistencies that arise there and in relation to the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve, it is important to refer to a number of particular matters.For example, the members of the navy in that particular conflict missed out but the RAAF and the army were included. The reasoning behind that is a number of definitional matters which I will quickly refer to. In relation to the allotment for duty in the operational area of the Malaya criteria, sailors were told that they were not allotted. However, documents have been recovered from the Australian Archives which show that men of the Royal Australian Navy were allotted along with the army and RAAF for defence in Malaya in 1955. In relation to first-hand experience, over 24 retired senior naval officers, including three former Chiefs of Naval Staff and one former Vice Chief of the Defence Force, all of whom served in Malaya and other wars, have told the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that the government's position is wrong. The government does not appear to be listening to them, however.As far as active service is concerned, in relation to meeting any one of the four defining criteria for active service, the Royal Australian Navy clearly met two of those criteria in that particular conflict. Indeed, some opinion from the Parliamentary Library supports the fact that the men in question were on active service, but that has been ignored. There are other areas that, in my view, need to be looked at to correct these anomalies. In relation to the review of service anomalies, there is no evidence in the report from the 1997 review that Australian Archives documentary evidence was considered. Instead, the report appears to have relied upon and been based upon false opinions, not documented facts. There were casualties. There were those who died and those who were removed from the campaign because of injury who should have been awarded the campaign medal under the short service condition of award which applies to most medals. The Navy Office has strenuously denied that recognition. Those sailors who died were on active service and their names should appear on the roll of honour at the War Memorial.Of the Army casualties on the roll, four died from friendly fire, nine were killed in motor vehicle accidents, two died from illness, one fell to his death, and one was a possible suicide. Of the nine RAAF mortalities on the roll, eight died from accidental injury and one from illness. Of the Navy people involved, a ranking called Spooner was killed by friendly fire. So anomalies exist between those in two of the services and those in the Royal Australian Navy.This area needs to be addressed to correct some of the anomalies that appear, not only in the provision and extension of the gold card and the criteria for it but also in other conflicts. There is a need to get equity across the board rather than adopting what could well be said—and I am not criticising the Minister for Veterans' Affairs as I am sure he concedes this, at least privately—to be great inequities across the board in the system. That is being left out. As a parliament, we are doing something good—and I think all members would agree with this measure—for veterans, but along the way inequities, inconsistencies and anomalies arise which we must carefully and clearly acknowledge and try to correct.I refer to an area in my electorate called Anzac Avenue, in Kallangur, which was basically set up as a memorial avenue for the veterans of World War I. Over the years it fell into disrepair with expanding urbanisation and so forth, but it is now making a comeback. Veterans from the Second World War and other conflicts have banded together and got behind the restoration of Anzac Avenue, to such an extent that bus stops dot Anzac Avenue where conflicts are remembered and recalled. Veterans such as those who are being recognised by this measure are remembered at various points along Anzac Avenue.Anzac Avenue has been widened. The Pine Rivers Shire Council, along with its tremendous mayor, Yvonne Chapman, have been right behind the improvements to Anzac Avenue and the recognition of veterans along it. However, one group of veterans has not been recognised along Anzac Avenue—Aboriginal veterans. I believe that we need a major Aboriginal monument in this country. In my respectful opinion, Aboriginal veterans have not been given the recognition they deserve.The Pine Rivers RSL proposes to construct a monument of national significance on Anzac Avenue for World War II and other Aboriginal veterans so that their position will be recognised. I have been supplied with some material about the siting of the proposed monument. I have had some discussions and correspondence with the minister over a period of probably 18 months and I have suggested that he get behind this monument. The community is behind it, Pine Rivers Shire Council is behind it, and Lend Lease has offered sponsorship and land for the siting of the monument.In my respectful submission, it is an overdue recognition of Aboriginal veterans, who have been recognised by this measure before the parliament. I ask the government to recognise that the positive siting of a major Aboriginal monument to complete the memorials that are dotted along Anzac Avenue would be a great way to recognise Aboriginal commitment in World War II in particular, and in other conflicts.The Yugrabal tribe has lived in the Pine Rivers area for generations. It was with this in mind that the name of the Pine Rivers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander memorial gardens was selected in the dialect of that tribe. The name is Dimmangali Dhag, which means `sacred earth'. It is believed that this is a fitting name for the memorial as it not only honours the Yugrabal tribe but also reflects the true meaning of a memorial to salute those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who served their country in times of conflict. It also reflects the special relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with the earth, and enhances one of the memorial park's aims, which is to provide a native flora garden to teach the community significant aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture.It is a continuing project. While various arms of government have given a fair bit of lip-service to it, there has not been any real commitment. I have to be a little bit critical of ATSIC because it has been very tardy in responding to correspondence about this particular matter. We would like ATSIC to get behind it as well, but so far it has not been able to commit itself to it. The minister has said that he supports the idea. As part of the Federation Fund—without saying that I have any real control over where the spending of money should go—I would certainly like to see some amount of money allocated to that particular monument to recognise the veterans from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in my electorate, and more particularly because it is going to be a monument of national significance across Australia.I urge the minister to think about that and also to consider some of the anomalies to which I have referred. I also urge the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) to consider some of the matters to which I have referred in relation to the Far Eastern Strategic Reserve, where those particular anomalies are acutely felt by Mr Carlyon and members of his association. It is about time we cleared that up and recognised the service of those sailors. Being on a ship is inherently dangerous in itself, let alone being liable to be fired on by guerrillas of uncertain capability. That was the reality of the Malayan Emergency when they were cruising up and down the coast on patrols. You could hardly say that that was not active service, but that appears to be the argument mounted against those particular veterans. I ask the relevant minister to look at that. I thank the House.12:53:005271Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—There are some 30 towns in the electorate of Murray and two regional cities, and in every one of those towns there is a roll of honour for the veterans. Some of them are just a few score people; some have no women. But in the bigger cities you have hundreds upon hundreds of names all arranged alphabetically. The names are of veterans from the Boer War, the First and Second World Wars, the Malayan Emergency, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Those rows and rows of names are specially honoured on Anzac Day, and sometimes too on 11 November each year. The communities turn once again to thank those young men and women who were prepared to represent Australia and to fight in some of the fiercest campaigns that we have seen in conflicts internationally. And they went willingly. In their war effort, they made for Australia a reputation way beyond the size of our nation in those early days. We were a small country when our young men and women—in particular our young men—went off to Anzac Cove and carved a name for themselves as courageous and innovative people—the sorts of people who in particular looked after their mates and who always made sure that there was honour in all they did.Much of the gold lettering on those memorials is fading, but it is important that, as the Second World War veterans now grow older, we do more than simply remember them and pay due homage to them not once, but often twice, a year. We must also look to the fact that they are growing elderly and they have health needs. Those health needs are often quite expensive for them to meet. So this Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 is extending to World War II veterans who have a particular qualifying service what we are calling the gold card. I will explain exactly what that means. This bill expands the already significant benefits available to World War II veterans in recognition of their increasing age and health needs, and this repatriation health care card is for all conditions. It will be extended to all Australian veterans aged over 70 with a particular qualifying service, which is outlined in the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This service means they have faced danger from hostile forces of the enemy.The previous speaker, the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), was arguing that that included some sailors who were of course in the Malayan Emergency. That is another debate for another day. In the case of most World War II veterans, they meet this criteria if they served outside Australia between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945. Obviously, there are some World War II service commitments within Australia that also meet those qualifying service criteria.Veterans eligible for the gold card as a result of this announcement and this bill moving itself through both houses will now be included among those 260,000 veterans who already have the card. Approximately 17,000 of these veterans already have a white card. This covers medical and health services, treatment for disabilities or medical conditions, all accepted by the Department of Veterans' Affairs as being caused by their service in the war. The 135,000 World War II veterans already with gold card benefits are those who were prisoners of war; were women acting as service personnel; are on a full disability pension; have a 50 per cent disability entitlement and a part service pension; or meet the income or assets test.This new measure is expected to make a further 50,000 male veterans eligible for the gold card. Many of these will be self-funded retirees who have, until now, funded their own health care needs and expenses. There is a range of care services that they will now be able to access free of charge. That includes: treatment as a private patient in a public or private hospital, choice of doctor, pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate, optical care, physiotherapy, dental service care, podiatry services and products, chiropractic services, and psychiatric services.The gold card will cover all medical conditions irrespective of whether the condition is war caused or not. These benefits are equivalent to what a veteran would receive if they had top private health care cover. Regardless of their level of income and assets, and irrespective of whether they have war caused disabilities and conditions, those World War II veterans with World War II qualifying service, aged 70 years or over, will be eligible for the gold card. I know this is being welcomed right throughout the veteran community. For the last 18 months to two years, I have had a number of my returned service men and women asking for this measure to be extended to them. I have to congratulate all of those who worked so long and hard. It is obviously at some cost to the Australian community—some $500 million over four years—but what better expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars could there be than making sure that our veterans' older age is protected from the costs of health care—costs they perhaps would not be able to meet unless they had this special support.The gold card for newly eligible veterans will be available from 1 January 1999. Many veterans who become eligible for the gold card under these provisions will not even have to apply for the card. It will be sent automatically to them if they are over 70 and are already receiving a service pension. Veterans who do not fit into this category will need to apply through the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the gold card. To assist them to apply, a dedicated 1800 number has been established. Veterans will be given as much assistance as possible to make sure that there is a bug-free move into the new system.I began by saying that this nation owes a huge debt of gratitude to our returned service men and women. It is also important to acknowledge that our veterans have never simply waited for the government to offer them support for their disabilities, whether they are related to their immediate wounds or related to their experiences in prisoner of war camps, or after the war.We also have in Australia the marvellous Legacy group. Too many people in Australia perhaps forget that returned service people made a commitment, often to their mates when they were in active service, that they would look after the widows and children should their mates not come home. Right across Australia we have the Australian Legacy clubs. When they took up the special task of looking after their mates' widows and children, they were themselves young, being in their 30s and 40s. Today a lot of the members of Legacy are in their 70s and 80s, but they continue the work. No longer are the children in their care young and needing help to get through their schooling or in need of a father figure. A lot of the work for Legacy today is to look after their elderly widows, women who have often been widowed for 50 or more years.I pay a special tribute to the Legacy clubs in my area in the electorate of Murray. I am often very proud to be invited to the changeover dinners when a new chairman of their group takes office. At those dinners, I am always deeply moved by the commitment of these old Second World War and Vietnam War diggers. At each of those changeover dinners they rededicate their lives to looking at the flame of remembrance. They remember to keep their commitments to the families of those who did not return. Those who did return are committed to making sure that we never forget and that widows and children still enjoy some of the good things of Australian society even though their husbands or fathers had paid the supreme sacrifice.Veterans have always done the best they could to look after their own. However, as they grow older, it is obviously well beyond some of our more fragile veterans in terms of their health. This gold card acknowledges that Australia will always remember and it will always be to the forefront in insisting nothing but the best will do for our returned service men and women.This initiative is just one of a great many this government has extended to veterans throughout Australia. For example, in the electorate of Murray, some new initiatives have been particularly welcomed. I refer, for example, to what is called the men's shed at the Tongala aged care hostel. As you know, often in elderly people's hostels there is a predominance of women, and men sometimes do not have a range of activities to keep themselves busy. There is a recognition at Tongala that many of the men, who have perhaps come off farms, or been active in workshops in their backyards, in the small towns, enjoy working with wood-turning equipment and other bits of machinery. Instead of the older men, particularly the older veterans, at Tongala sitting and watching the women do their craft work, they can now go out to the men's shed. It is a terrific facility built just beyond the garden at the edge of the very homely facility at Tongala.Veterans Affairs' helped to fund that men's shed. The equipment inside has been donated very generously by machinery manufacturers. The door is big enough for wheelchair access. Those veterans and other elderly men of the Tongala district can go into the big shed, smell the sawdust and talk to each other about things that matter to them. Volunteers from the community help them if they are not able to handle some of the machinery. They hope to be able to make little bits and pieces, such as Christmas presents, or do some basic maintenance at the Tongala aged persons hostel that might be within their ability. It is an innovative initiative and one that is very important for the older men in that community. Veterans' Affairs, through this government, saw it as an important thing to do. They have funded that initiative, and it is perhaps a model for other places.We also have in our area initiatives such as the special memorial projects. As I started to say, some of the gold lettering on our memorial honour boards are fading. There is now lichen on the granite steps and lichen is obliterating some of the names of our heroes on all those little outdoor monuments that are scattered throughout the towns and cities of Australia. Grants have been made right throughout Australia in the last 12 months to make sure that all those memorials are renovated, with the lead and the gold lettering being put back into the names. Each new generation will be left without any doubt as to which young men and women sacrificed their youth, and in some cases their lives, as they volunteered to fight for Australia in a series of international catastrophes that Australia saw as important enough to participate in.The government also recognises that a lot of our older people prefer to stay in their homes longer and live independent and active lives. Veterans' Affairs in particular has supported older veterans. For example, the Tongala RSL, in that same small town I referred to where the aged care hostel is, has been successful in applying for a grant to buy chairs with arms. It might sound a simple thing, but mobility is quite difficult for quite elderly people trying to get out of chairs without arms. With a comparatively small grant from our government through Veterans' Affairs, the Tongala RSL can go on being a place where veterans can meet. They can have social activities and invite other elderly community groups into their service centre. That whole range of new chairs means that no-one need be kept at home or be embarrassed because they literally cannot get themselves in and out of chairs. It is a simple thing, but it is very important that we recognise the needs of our older people.In the Goulburn Valley region of Murray, a lot of smaller towns are declining in size. As they are getting smaller and at the same time our veterans are growing older, a number of our RSL clubs and sub-branches are closing. It has been more difficult for a lot of our veterans to access information about their entitlements, or even to find other veterans who perhaps belonged to the same defence contingents or parts of the defence forces. We have also had recently funded in Shepparton a regional one-stop shop for returned service men and women. This is just up the road from our RSL club in Shepparton. It is a shopfront that is owned by the RSL.In that one-stop shop, our veterans can get information and be referred to other services. They can also make sure that their forms are always filled in to their advantage and that all the information is accurate as it should be. That one-stop shop is thriving. It is doing well because a series of volunteers, they themselves being veterans, have now been specifically trained to make sure that every other returned service man and woman understands exactly what their entitlements and rights are. The federal government has granted $7,300 to fit out that new building. I was very proud to officially open it just the other day. I was especially proud to present a flag that had flown in this chamber to that veterans' information service in Shepparton. That flag takes pride of place in the facility.I am also very proud to have been asked to be the patron of the Vietnam Veterans' Association in the Goulburn Valley. Our Vietnam veterans are growing older, although they are now only in their 50s. Their health needs are such that there is no doubt that, as the years go by, Australia's need to take care of its veterans will not diminish. We are looking at another 30 years or more, with our Vietnam veterans' health needs requiring particular attention.There is a whole range of other particularly targeted services for veterans in Australia. The residential care development scheme is one. This aims to provide residential aged care services and community aged care packages for entitled veterans, widows and widowers. A number of veterans in Murray have benefited from that scheme, with 49 community aged care packages just recently dedicated to the people of Murray. That means that our veterans can stay in their homes as long as they wish to and for as long as possible supported by services that are brought to them.We also have the preventative health program for veterans, which emphasises maintaining independence, preventing illness and improving the health and quality of life of our older veterans. It is a very important initiative. We understand that we need to do more research into the health needs of our Vietnam veterans in particular because they were some of the first who were exposed to the chemical warfare that has now become much more commonplace in this last decade. We have made sure that at least $1.1 million is available for a total of 22 research projects looking at health and medical research associated with veterans' health. That is a very important initiative.There is emergency short-term relief, which is a program that provides assistance in a crisis situation when a carer of an elderly, unwell or disabled veteran needs respite. We often forget that, if there is a veteran who needs continuous care, a carer has to give that support. Our government understands the needs of carers as well as those of the dis abled, unwell or frail because of their older years. The carer support and volunteer support program, administered through Veterans' Affairs, is particularly welcome in my area, where we have often quite a distance to travel to a hospital or aged care facility.We understand that a range of services is going to be needed for many years to come in Australia to make sure that our veterans are recognised and that the debt we owe this nation is truly paid. No veteran expects a handout. Veterans simply want to make sure that in their older years they can live with dignity and have their health care needs met. With the cost of health care today, it is often very difficult for older people to meet their needs. I commend the bill to the House and commend this government for making sure that as a nation we recognise our marvellous veterans.13:12:005275Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—I am indebted to the veterans of the Korean War Journal for an extract relating to entitlements for Korean war veterans in the United States and for their motto, `Freedom is not free'. I am interested in it because, from time to time, things such as a person's wartime service entitlements and what the community or nation ought to do for veterans is factored in on economic or financial considerations alone. In other words, there is a tendency to look at the ways to reduce or minimise the entitlements as a draw-down on the Commonwealth's finances.Obviously, as we look at the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 , it is important to recognise that people who have offered to sacrifice themselves in service to their country deserve special recognition for that sacrifice. The previous speaker, the member for Murray (Mrs Stone), mentioned the sacrifice of youth in the context of veterans' commitment to their country. The member for Murray made much of that, and I think she is right, but in the context of this bill, the use of that line of argument militates against what is in the bill a very serious restriction on veterans' entitlement for a gold card. The purpose of the bill is to extend full repatriation health care benefits to Australian veterans who are aged 70 or over and who have World War II qualifying service. In the first instance, I join with the RSL in commending the government for this decision. It is surely well deserved for those who will receive it. Over the years, I have written many letters asking for this kind of recognition for service men and women, to the previous Labor government and the current Howard government. I think it is fair and just that veterans be rewarded for their willingness to make this sacrifice for their country.In order to qualify for the gold card, veterans will have to be aged 70 years or over and have served within prescribed geographic locations within prescribed dates. The gold card is the popular name for the repatriation health card for all conditions and is issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It will enable holders to access health care as though they have top-of-the-range cover in a private health care fund. It is a very significant measure for most veterans who qualify to receive it. Gold card holders will receive benefits such as treatment as a private patient in a public or private hospital, their choice of doctor, pharmaceuticals at a concessional rate, optical care, physiotherapy, dental care, podiatry and chiropractic services. Access to the card is not means tested and its benefits are not restricted to an illness or incapacity that is accepted as being war service related. Further, the introduction of this measure will mean that many World War II veterans will receive real and worthwhile recognition for their wartime service from a grateful nation.However, there are some drawbacks with the way the government has limited access to the gold card. I accept that fiscal responsibility has to be a consideration in public policy but, equally, fairness should prevail. I would like to examine the two major drawbacks to the government's approach in a little more detail.The first of these is a failure to adequately recognise the service of veterans from other conflicts. Both the government and the opposition have made the point that they consider it appropriate that access to the benefits that a gold card provides should be linked to the time frame when a particular term of service occurred. They then qualify the type of service as that which would expose the service person to a particular level of threat and finally say that a minimum age of 70 years is the cut-off.I cannot see any logical consequence of service in wartime in a particular war as being somehow more important than wartime service in another war. The simple fact that a qualifying age of 70 years is applied indicates that the government and the opposition both recognise that veterans can best be rewarded by giving them a greater degree of security in their ability to access high quality health care in their senior years. The key to this repatriation benefit is that it provides a health benefit to veterans in their later years, not that it is roughly 54 or 55 years since the end of the Second World War and somehow fits a precedent relating to veterans of the First World War.It has been established quite clearly that Vietnam veterans, though having to pass clear-cut and extensive health and fitness tests before joining the armed forces, now have an average level of health and fitness which is lower than that of the equivalent age group in our community who did not serve in Vietnam. I would suggest that research will show that this is consistent with veterans from other wars. Surely the Australian community recognises that people who have put their lives at risk and have had their health damaged as a consequence should receive health care support.There are many veterans from the Korean War who have reached the 70-year threshold, served in locations where they were at great personal risk and who are facing deterioration in their health. To exclude them from equivalent access to a gold card as we see granted to World War II veterans through this bill and to use the excuse that it will cost either too much or that it has not been 54 or 55 years since the end of the Korean War, in my view, is to devalue their service. Seventy-year-old veterans from the Korean War and Vietnam veterans who are approaching 70 would, in my opinion, be justified in thinking the government somehow thinks that their service is of a lesser quality than service from World War II.I might add at this point that in an article in the Financial Review Peter Walsh had two particular concerns relating to the extension of gold card benefits to World War II veterans. He made the observation that, in coming 54 or so years after the end of the Second World War, it has effectively excluded those Australian World War II veterans who have since passed away. In actual fact, during their lifetime, particularly during their latter years, they received a lesser recognition for their service than now is the case for the surviving veterans from World War II.Peter Walsh then went on to make the comment, `Why should this particular benefit be extended to millionaires or to those who are in comfortable financial circumstances?' The interesting situation, as was mentioned, is the case of those who are required, in the case of Vietnam service, to have undergone extensive health tests before being eligible to serve. Of course, there was no consideration given to a person's financial circumstances before they served in World War II or in the Korean War. In other words, it was not of any interest at the time to those who were responsible for enlisting men and women in the armed services, and therefore neither should it be a consideration in the extension of the gold card benefits to those veterans who would be otherwise entitled.In that case, Peter Walsh, in endeavouring no doubt to extend his normal economic rationalist view to the extension of benefits to veterans or to other members of the community, has taken that particular circumstance a little too far, and I am sure the shadow minister at the table would disagree with his former colleague from the Labor Party. In the case of the 54 or so years that have passed since the end of the Second World War before this benefit has been extended, I think there are good grounds to question why it has taken so long, considering, for instance, that in 1975 Judge Toose did a milestone report on veterans' entitlements.There are many veterans from the Korean War who have reached the 70-year-old threshold. They served in locations where they were at great personal risk and, as I mentioned earlier, are facing deterioration in their health. In the case of Korean War veterans, this and the previous government have not even felt it a responsibility of theirs to construct a Korean War memorial in Canberra; rather, they have made an donation equivalent to the Korean government's to a fund for construction. A Korean War memorial will be built in Canberra only if enough public and private donations can be collected. I am advised that Korean War veterans from the United States, presumably unable to understand that the Australian government would not adequately recognise the war service, have recently donated $12,000 to the Australian memorial fund. I have placed on the Notice Paper a motion which calls on the Australian government to:(1) immediately allocate whatever funds are required to meet the shortfall for the construction of a war memorial in Canberra to Australia's participation in the Korean War; and(2) undertake to celebrate a consecration of the memorial to demonstrate that, despite the more than 45 years since that conflict ended, the importance of Australia's contribution to this major UN operation is respected by both the Government and the broader community.I look forward to the opportunity to debate the merits of this motion with government members when it comes up. Such a memorial and the question of access to the gold card are tangible measures that should be taken by this government as a matter of priority.I would also like to turn to comments by the RSL in Australia. Whilst applauding the government for this new measure, the national president of the RSL highlighted his expectation that veterans of other conflicts should also be rewarded for their service as they reach their senior years.The second drawback in the two that I am talking about in the government's approach is that it denies a gold card to those veterans who did not perform active service in a prescribed location. I have concerns about a number of veterans who did make significant sacrifice—the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) mentioned that sacrifice of their youth—but failed to be deployed into one of the geographic locations where they could be considered by the department to have been at risk—through no fault of their own, I might add—after having put themselves in a position to be deployed at any particular time to one of those locations.In my constituency I have a number of instances of these types of anomalies. In one particular case, one constituent underwent detailed and dangerous training, was posted to Alice Springs and received two 28-day leave passes in four years. He is ineligible under these rules, because the government did not deploy him to Darwin or overseas. But he did suffer hardship and risk anyway, and in my view he ought to be entitled to a similar benefit.I would like to see a system where all servicemen and servicewomen who achieve a certain level of service, perhaps 15 years, as was the case for defence service home loans, should be able to access the level of health care provided by the gold card when they reach the age of 70. If this government found that this is not acceptable due to cost, all veterans—that is, all people who have undertaken operational service, irrespective of where and when it was undertaken—should be included in this measure as soon as they reach 70.I have made specific mention of the Korean War as our first major UN contribution, but since then many Australian servicemen and servicewomen, and policemen and policewomen, have served in a variety of locations around the globe at significant risk to their safety. Unless every operation they participate in is specified, they are unlikely to become eligible for a gold card should they reach 70 years of age.I might add another important rider to this: because these measures are introduced in this piecemeal fashion, people become suspicious, in my view, as I think a member from the opposition has pointed out, in the sense that they are introduced in the climate of an impending election campaign. Clearly, the coalition, through some of its other measures, most notably the nursing home changes, has upset and, in many instances, made insecure a large number of senior Australians, and I would imagine that it is anxious to win back the support of the people it has lost as a consequence of some of these changes.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has said in his statements in recent times that he wishes stability, security and safety to be the prevailing set of circumstances in the community. I would challenge the Prime Minister and say that in actual fact much of his legislation that is reformist has contributed to the level of insecurity in the community, the sense of insecurity fuelled and fed by change which people find difficult to understand or difficult to come to terms with. In many instances, it is purely and simply because it is a change for change's sake. In cases where people are elderly and perhaps have become used to a set of circumstances over a number of years, the changes that have been mooted or introduced by the coalition in a number of instances contribute to a level of insecurity which, as we know from Hugh Mackay's most recent works and some of his most recent articles, is prevailing at a very high rate in our community.Some members in recent times have probably been questioning why the community is behaving in particular ways electorally, but I would say that insecurity, a sense of alienation and a sense of powerlessness in the decision making process have very heavily contributed to this. Unfortunately, the government, elected as it was with a huge mandate, has contributed to this by fuelling this level of insecurity through many of the changes it has either introduced or mooted during its period of office.In my view, there ought to be a uniform benefit extended, as far as the gold card is concerned, to those servicemen and servicewomen who have served in operational areas, at the very least, on achieving the age of 70. It seems to me to be unfair and undesirable that it becomes a political football at election time and that announcements are made in what I consider to be a piecemeal approach.I mentioned earlier in relation to the Korean War memorial that, if people are looking at how a government views the contribution made by servicemen and servicewomen to the cause of their country or to the causes that their country has undertaken, the lack of a Korean War memorial—in other words, full funding from the federal government—is a grave disappointment. It certainly would be a grave disappointment to many of the Korean War veterans in the Australian community.I would like to conclude by reiterating that, although on the one hand this is a very desirable measure as far as the World War II veterans who served in operational areas are concerned—and I commend the government for making these changes, something that I have wanted to see for a long time and have made numerous representations about—I am very concerned that, by doing so in this way, the government has sent an unfortunate message, probably one that was not foreseen or intended, to veterans of other conflicts who may have also reached the age of 70 years or who are approaching the age of 70 years that their service in operational areas was in some way less onerous or less of a sacrifice than the service of the World War II veterans.I also want to point out the cases of those particular veterans who served in Australia and who, through no fault of their own, were neither transferred nor sent to operational areas, as defined by the bill, but were prepared to risk their lives on behalf of their country and, in the cases in my electorate, to sacrifice a substantial part of their youth in the service to Australia in remote locations. In the case of the constituent that I mentioned, in effect he was separated from his family for four years. In my view, this merits the benefits that a gold card provide.I believe that a country like Australia, particularly with its geographic location and the fact that it is a continent and a place that is very difficult to defend in a time of warfare, must as a matter of great priority not only give significant recognition to the fact that people have been prepared to serve and have served their country but also make sure that that service does not become in effect a political football around election times.I hope that, in reviewing the way in which the legislation has progressed, the government might care to consider the interests of those Korean War and Vietnam War veterans who are approaching 70 years and, I might add, the interests in the future of Australian servicemen and servicewomen who have served in operational areas in other capacities but have also undertaken their duties at a risk to their own lives. I commend the bill, with those reservations.13:30:005279Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—I am pleased to support the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998, which recognises the veterans of Deakin and their service to our nation. My colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) has a unique empathy with the veteran community and he should be congratulated on this initiative.The extension of the gold card will assist 50,000 Australians who are well deserving of the benefits that accrue from it. Today they are our nation's seniors but nearly 60 years ago they were the cream of our youth. Back then they bravely donned the uniforms of our fighting forces to defend our nation. Australia has always answered the call, as it did in World War II, but while a nation went to war it was the individuals, the men and women who marched away, who made the greatest commitment of all. It goes without saying that we as a nation should continue to accord them our great gratitude in every meaningful way.During this year which marks the 80th anniversary of the armistice which signalled the end of World War I, the war to end all wars, it is also worth noting that it is the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the repatriation system that is widely recognised as the finest repatriation system in the world.As we remember those who gave their lives for Australia we must also salute those who returned, and we do so through the excellent repatriation system that is part and parcel of our nation's gratitude.The extension of full repatriation health care benefits to Australian veterans who are aged 70 or over and who have World War II qualifying service is highly appropriate, and long overdue. I am pleased that a significant number of these new recipients include self-funded retirees. Some are already receiving a part service pension, but income and assets tests currently exclude them from health care benefits. That will change with this legislation.These veterans have long felt discriminated against by government, and in some cases with good reason. They have fought for our nation and provided for their own retirement at a significant saving to the taxpayers, yet they have been denied entitlements which have been granted to pensioners on similar incomes.The extension of the gold card is another step towards greater equity. The gold card will enable these veterans to access the full range of repatriation health care benefits, which are the equal of top cover in a private health fund. Whether a medical condition resulted from war service or not, these veterans will be covered for all costs including transport to and from hospitals or other places of treatment. In my electorate of Deakin over 350 veterans will qualify for these services and, from the feedback I have had from the community, veterans have welcomed this move.We have four very active RSL branches in Deakin. Mitcham RSL president, Peter McPhee, Blackburn RSL president, Arthur Tynan, Croydon RSL president, Ken Gibbons, and Ringwood RSL president, Ron Burch, their committees, members and their entire RSL sub-branch organisation continue to preserve the memory of those who served our country. Often they preserve the memory of those who served our country despite their own difficulties which they themselves have encountered along the way.Those RSLs and individuals, including Barry Kilmartin of the Blackburn RSL, Mr J.W. Down of Ringwood, Mr R.J. Stewart of Ringwood North and Mr C.J. Little of Ringwood have approached me consistently over the past two years with a view to having this gold card extended. It has been mentioned by many RSL members on my visits to their establishments. Having spoken with the minister on a number of occasions about the possibility of this extension, I am happy to see it granted. It is another initiative of our government and it is further evidence of our commitment to our senior citizens in Deakin.One of the wider public benefits of this initiative will be an easing of pressure on public hospital services, because the gold card allows access to private facilities. The states will welcome the initiative and should note that the Commonwealth has not reduced funding to them to account for this.Inevitably, the extension of the gold card has raised some questions, which the member for Moore (Mr Filing) has also mentioned in his speech this afternoon. The gold card has not been extended at this time to those who served in Allied forces, even though they may be receiving veterans' pensions here as recognition for their service.As the nature of the gold card is compensatory, it remains the responsibility of those foreign governments to introduce measures which would benefit their veterans. However, I do urge the minister to continue to lobby those governments, particularly the government of the United Kingdom, to introduce a reciprocal scheme such as the one that applies to the white card. Many British and other foreign veterans have settled here and it would be fitting that they too be accorded gold card status.I note, however, that some Allied and Commonwealth veterans who served with a Commonwealth or Allied force during World War II will be eligible if they had lived in Australia before enlisting in Commonwealth or Allied forces. I also note that Australian veterans of more recent conflicts, particularly Korea, feel aggrieved at being omitted. I look forward to the government continuing to review the plight of these veterans and extending to them the gold card in the near future.The average age of Australian World War II veterans is 76½. This gold card extension comes at a time when many of those veterans are most in need of the best available care. As the years have passed and as Australia's involvement in foreign conflicts has dwindled, our surviving veterans have become an even more valuable resource. It makes us wonder how we can truly appreciate the appalling conditions endured by those who fought for our freedom in the mud and slush of Europe, in the barren deserts of Africa and in the poisonous jungles of Asia. And it makes us wonder how can we appreciate those who faced treacherous conditions at home.We can learn something of that from talking to our veterans. I have long argued for and encouraged the people of Deakin, particularly those in our education system, to get out there and meet and discuss the plight of our veterans, and the heroics of our veterans, while we have such a valuable resource.One episode that I would like to highlight and bring forward to the parliament is the history of the Royal Australian Navy's minesweeping ships. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet Vin Murphy, who served during World War II on the HMAS Orara, the largest of the Royal Australian Navy's minesweeping ships. The minesweepers have a motto: `As they sow, so shall we sweep.' The minesweepers comprised 35 ships who patrolled our shores, clearing mines laid by Australia's enemies. Mr Murphy told me the story of the HMAS Goorangai, the minesweeping vessel that went down in Port Phillip Bay just after 8.30 on the night of 20 November 1940 en route from Queenscliff to Portsea. The Goorangai was hit by HMAS Duntroon, which was en route to Sydney from Melbourne. It was the first ship lost by the Navy in World War II. Darkness and wartime restrictions on lighting made conditions for rescue difficult. All 24 crew on the Goorangai perished.For security reasons, the truth about this tragedy was kept quiet. As with the bombing of Darwin, the true extent of many wartime incidents was underplayed at the time and perhaps not given due recognition in later years. Today, with the urging of the Minesweepers Association, a memorial has been erected in memory of the crew of the Goorangai at Queenscliff.The Minesweepers are a proud bunch. They are but one of the many organisations that keep alive the memory of our wartime heroes and their deeds. I trust that these increased benefits will again convey to our veteran community that all Australians appreciate their sacrifice and what they have done for our nation. As General Douglas MacArthur reminded us in his farewell speech to the cadets at West Point:. . . the soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.I commend this bill to the House.13:40:005281Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—It is a wonderful opportunity today to speak on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 . This bill will have a profound effect on thousands in the community. This is an announcement that I understand will benefit over 500 veterans in my electorate of Petrie and will add to the present 1,675 veterans and 1,109 dependants presently receiving the gold card.Our veterans are very special in a number of ways and our veteran community is a poignant reminder of the achievements in history of this country. They are a reflection on where we have come as a nation and they deserve recognition for they have given so much to Australia and the community as a whole. Veterans have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and many suffered the loss of contact with their families and loved ones. They missed out on seeing their children's babyhood and many never ever saw the formative years of their children.Returning home to pick up the pieces was not always easy and, to many, the war left some very visible scars and wounds. But, to others, the invisible wounds were sometimes the most difficult to live with, and they never healed. Their lives and the lives of those around them were never to be the same again. Only this week I spoke to a woman who told me what it was like when her father returned home from the war. She was always sent to the shop around bath time so that she could not hear his screams as the water touched his battle scarred and burnt body. Close to 300,000 Australian troops returned home from the First World War, while 102,000 were never to return. They must always be remembered.The World War I soldier settlement scheme was not without its problems initially. It had tragic consequences for many who hoped to establish themselves on farms and properties. The war service home scheme, now known as the defence service home loan scheme, helped many veterans return home. At the moment, the defence service interest rate is guaranteed at a minimum subsidy of 1.5 per cent below the average variable home rate. This interest rate will never rise above 6.85 per cent and no client of defence service homes will ever pay new or increased fees. It is an absolutely great initiative. There will be no fees or fee increases for existing borrowers taking out small ancillary advances. The position of widows, in particular, will be protected. There will also be a 50 per cent discount off standard establishment and account management costs for new borrowers. Home ownership has always been the great Australian dream and the veteran community will not be disadvantaged here.I would think all members of this House would be pleased with the growth in the numbers who now take time out to participate in Anzac Day ceremonies and remembrance ceremonies, particularly young people who are extremely proud of their heritage. I was filled with great pride this year as I saw so many people at these celebrations and ceremonies in my electorate. Some were wearing the medals of those who fought for our great country. It is an assurance that we as a nation must never forget. It is a guarantee that we will always remember those who gave us our many freedoms and the quality of life that we enjoy today. It is an assurance that we as a nation will not forget and it is a guarantee that we will always remember those who have gone before us.Without doubt the health of older people in our community must continue to be the utmost priority. The federal government has recognised this fact through this bill, extending the gold card provisions to all World War II veterans aged 70 years or older with World War II qualifying service. This qualifying service will cover the period from 3 September 1939 to 29 October 1945. Provision in this bill is also made for cases where people who served within Australia during World War II and faced danger from hostile forces will have that classified as qualifying service.The measures incorporated in the bill are determined to come into effect on 1 January 1999. For the record, the gold card provides health care services including private patient hospital care and the ability to have a doctor of personal choice. It also provides for a wide range of other specialist treatment including psychiatric, optical, dental and chiropractic care and many other services. Pharmaceutical products under the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme can also be claimed.It is important to point out that those veterans who already receive a service pension for overseas or other hostile duty in World War II will automatically qualify for a gold card. I, like many others, such as the Returned and Ex-Service Leagues Clubs and other interested parties, warmly welcome the extension of the gold card and the benefits that it will bring to thousands of families across Australia and in my electorate. They have lobbied very hard for these benefits and have been rewarded by a government which has listened to their concerns.From figures I have seen, it is estimated that, of the 80,000 veterans who currently hold a white card, approximately 17,000 will become eligible for the gold card under this initiative. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is continuing with its strong link to the care and health of veterans. I note that for the 1998-99 period the department will spend an estimated $2,404 million on health care and services. This is a 23 per cent increase in the expenditure figures for 1997-98.The recent budget even secured arrangements for $150 million for five years to provide hospital care for the veteran community. The health of veterans is important to monitor and this is a community where, as veterans grow older, the demands on service will increase—doctors, nurses, specialists and the hospital system as a whole. It is therefore important that the money is available and is spent in areas which are currently placing demands on the system.I note the release of a study earlier this year that found that national servicemen who served in Vietnam had a slightly higher overall mortality rate and significantly elevated mortality rates for lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver. This is in comparison to those national servicemen who did not go to Viet nam. The conclusions from this type of research ensure the nature of emphasis when encouraging veterans to take greater advantage of healthy living and establishing prevention methods for the onset of serious disease.It absolutely amazed me last night to hear the comments from the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) when he spoke to this bill. The member criticised the government for what he believes are its inadequacies. The provision of the gold card to all qualifying World War II veterans is a vast improvement and it is a great initiative of this coalition government in its first term. Surely, he should be looking at what the Labor Party failed to provide for our valued veterans over the 13 years of Labor's term.Why is it that Mr Beazley and his colleagues did not provide more assistance for veterans when they were in government? Why criticise the Howard government for improving the lot of these men and women who fought for our country? A large number of veterans in my electorate of Petrie will benefit from this bill, and they will be a hell of a lot better off than they were under Labor. Since the coalition's election in March 1996, the commitment it has given to the veterans community is absolutely unparalleled. Under such programs as Their Service—Our Heritage, veterans and their associated groups have been the beneficiaries of a comprehensive program of assistance, grants, commemorative services and activities.Just a snapshot of some of these initiatives gives you an overall picture of the level of support that has been provided to the veteran community. These initiatives include the increase in pension for war widows and war widowers, which has been very well received in my electorate and in the rest of Australia; the increase in funding for the base rate of the Australian War Memorial retirement assistance for farmers scheme; and the introduction of a medication management and treatment awareness program, which was greatly needed. Also, there has been funding to ex-service organisations to enable them to employ additional advocates. I know that the advocates in my area of Petrie work flawlessly. They are very in tune to the needs of the community and they work tirelessly for the veteran communities that they represent. Other initiatives include the extension of the refurbishment program for the Australian War Graves, the commencement of a nominal roll of Korean veterans, which has been very widely received, and the extension of the gold card entitlements.As a federal member I have had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) to my electorate. The minister works tirelessly for the veteran community. Last year when he visited the electorate some 150 people from veterans groups—including war widows, presidents of veterans' affairs associations, members of civilian widows associations, ex-servicewomen's associations and Vietnam veterans' associations—were present to witness the presentation of certificates of appreciation to those who contributed to the efforts of Australians in World War II.Those people were absolutely touched by his presence on that day. I was overwhelmed by the support that their families gave them and the appreciation that they felt. It was a very touching day for me as well to see the large number of people who have served our country receive these certificates of appreciation. However, it needs to be noted that I am really pleased with the level of assistance that the veteran community has received from this government and will continue to receive.The Redcliffe Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia was granted $3,200 in November of last year under the claims assistance grants scheme to purchase a computer to assist in the managing of the database of applications and to access information relevant to veterans' issues. This will not only help the group greatly but provide much needed resources that they have been after for many years, and it will enable them to do their job efficiently and much more effectively. I must commend the Vietnam vets for the work that they do in the Redcliffe region, particularly the Vietnam Veterans president, Mr Rogers, who has had a very long association with this group. He is a very hardworking advocate. He is well recognised in the community for his time and his effort and the style he brings to the particular work that he does.Under the federal government's healthy lifestyle encouragement grants scheme, the Redcliffe older people's action program also received two grants. They were very well received. Within the Redcliffe central business district there was a coordination of the Redcliffe Safety and Security Expo, which was held during Veterans Health Week 1997—safety is an absolutely important issue for all members of our older community, particularly the members of our veteran community—and it enabled them to undertake some project work and some management work to deal with safety issues within people's homes. So that was very well received and welcomed.Congratulations must go also, when we speak of veterans in the Redcliffe and Petrie area, to the Rats of Tobruk Association and, in particular, to Mr Bill Coussins. I just do not know where Mr Coussins finds the energy. He leaves me far behind in his efforts when I follow him around. He recently received a grant of $1,000 under the Department of Veterans' Affairs commemorative activities funds to assist with the school education program. There is not a school where I do not see Mr Coussins. He has been doing a lot of this work voluntarily where he will go and speak to the high school students on the Rats of Tobruk and their activities. Those students are absolutely fascinated with the stories that he has to tell concerning the Rats of Tobruk and their involvement. He was delighted to receive this grant because it means that he will be able to continue his well-valued and greatly rewarding work with the schools in the Petrie area. This funding will enable him to give books to students and will enable him to keep teaching them and providing a educational service. This funding was part of this government's Their Service—Our Heritage program. The magnificent work will continue on. The experiences of the Rats of Tobruk have been very popular and will continue to be the case.The Rats of Tobruk are also at the moment planning a huge event. It will be a world reunion. It will be the first time ever this has occurred. I wish them well in their prepara tion of this event. I am absolutely thrilled that they will doing this. This will be a huge logistical exercise. It will involve bringing a great number of people to the Petrie area. I will endeavour to do all I can to assist them and make sure that this project comes to fruition.It is only right in discussing veterans' affairs and the impact of the veteran community in our whole community that I make very special mention of a person who was recently honoured as part of the Queen's Birthday Honour List. Mr Bernie Williams was recently a recipient of the Order of Australia medal. Mr Williams is presently serving as the Redcliffe RSL Club president and chairman of the board of directors. The Redcliffe and Bayside Herald wrote a profile of Mr Williams. In that profile they had this to say about Mr Williams:He has held the position of the Redcliffe RSL president for the past 18 years and has also been associated with the Registered and Licensed Club Association of Queensland for the past 25 years, of which he has been an executive member for 12 years.Mr Williams is also Senior Vice President of the RSL Clubs Association of Queensland and is a very worthy recipient of this award. I am proud to have worked with Mr Williams in the past and I look forward to working with him well into the future.The RSL provides a great service to our community. It is a place where people of all backgrounds, race, colour and creed can meet and enjoy fellowship and friendship. The RSL provides great loyalty to the memories of past and present members. I wish to congratulate the Redcliffe RSL for their work within the community and also outside their RSL community as well because they do quite a lot in the electorate. Their current refurbishment program and the tireless efforts of their committee has enabled Redcliffe to have a top rating club of which we are all extremely proud. The natural beauty of the area has been taken into account when designing this club and the colour scheme and its decor is modern, fresh and particularly inviting. I wish the RSL many years of successful operation.The commitment and dedication of these veterans can never be questioned and their experiences will remain with them throughout their whole life. It is therefore pleasing that it has taken a coalition government to provide the extension of the gold card to World War II veterans and to provide the many benefits that they did not receive under previous governments. I hope that we will continue to work with the community. I know that all Australians from generation to generation will continue with great pride to value the work of the RSL. We have to recognise the very valuable work that has been done for the community, and we will continue to recognise their tireless efforts. I was pleased to find out today also that the Redcliffe City Council has approved a Korean veterans memorial site to be built on the Redcliffe Parade. I am particularly pleased about that. I will continue to work with the veteran community, and I know that they welcome the extension of the gold card and its entitlements.13:59:005284Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—In the 45 seconds that I have, I might just tell the gallery that I represent the seat of Herbert, which is based in Townsville where it is 25 degrees today. I can tell you I wish I was back in paradise up in the tropics. It is wonderful city, and if any of you would like a great holiday in winter come to Townsville.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—It being nearly 2 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member for Herbert will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements52845284Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) will be absent from question time for the rest of this week and next week. The minister is overseas attending the World Forum in the United States. He will also represent me at the official opening of two Australian memorial parks in France, officiate at the 80th anniversary of the end of World War I and attend the funeral of a South Australian soldier, Private Bosisto, who was killed during World War I and whose body was recently discovered in France. I might also mention that the shadow defence minister and member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis) will accompany the minister to the commemorative services. The Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) will be Acting Minister for Defence and will answer questions on the minister's behalf.Questions Without Notice528552855285Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can you confirm meeting with Ministers Sharp and Reith in the week prior to 21 April 1997 to discuss a proposed interventionist strategy for the waterfront? Did this discussion involve proposals for a major corporate restructure by Patrick's involving the separation of the labour elements of the stevedoring operation from the infrastructure component? Did it involve a proposal for externally generated action to provoke a dispute, allowing the wholesale termination of the Patrick's work force? And did it involve a discussion on the development of a replacement work force, most likely from an overseas operation, following the wholesale termination? Prime Minister, how did you respond to these proposals?5285Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can inform the House that because my government was committed to reform of the Australian waterfront I had numerous meetings not only with ministers but my ministers had numerous meetings with other people involved in the industry, including representatives of the trade union movement. I can say that the purpose of all of those meetings was to achieve the government's objective of reforming the waterfront consistent with the laws of the country.52855285Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative views on the railway proposal put forward by Mr Everald Compton and supported by you? What is the government's response to these proposals?5285Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The most interesting point that ought to be made about this whole proposal is the extraordinary backflip of the Leader of the Opposition between his performance last night on the 7.30 Report when he said, `If Everald can get his rail link up, that is cool, that is great, all strength to his right arm,' and this morning when Senator Bolkus, one of his senior shadow ministers, went on Adelaide radio and slammed the proposal that was announced yesterday. He slammed it, he attacked it, he said it was a crazy proposal; and he attacked the government for supporting the proposal.This is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say this morning when he had been brought into line by none other than Senator Bolkus. I know Senator Bolkus has run amok on native title inside the Labor Party, but I do not see why he should be allowed to run amok on this issue. This is the advice that he would have given to Mr Compton if he had been approached:I ain't going to be launching yer and even if I do so, it is a good thing you're doing it and would you just please hold hard, hold your horses, until we have got this other scheme on our plates.In other words, last night, full steam ahead; this morning, after Senator Bolkus had intervened and said, `No, we don't like that,' the Leader of the Opposition has done a monumental backflip.This is barely surprising from the party that had 13 years to commit itself to the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. We all remember that memorable commitment of Bob Hawke—and his words will be ringing in the ears of every South Australian member in this house—when he said, `I promise you that only the Labor government can be trusted to build the Alice Springs to Darwin line.' For 13 years the Leader of the Opposition's party had an opportunity to do something. We are the first government since Federation to commit the taxpayers' dollars to the construction of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, and the decisions about future rail investment in this country will ultimately be made by investors and by consumers.The Leader of the Opposition does his reputation no good by saying one thing on the 7.30 Report last night and saying another thing this morning. He has got one foot in Adelaide and one foot in Queensland. Last night, it was full steam ahead on the proposal; this morning, now that Senator Bolkus has said no, he has got a completely different tack. It is old Mr Flip-Flop as the Leader of the Opposition once again on the public horizon.52865286Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We have got a Prime Minister with one foot in his mouth on this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of your answer to the previous question from the opposition, can you confirm that on 21 April 1997 you wrote to John Sharp in the following terms:I refer to our recent discussions on maritime reform. I support the interventionist strategy you have outlined. It would be appreciated if you and the Minister for Industrial Relations could proceed expeditiously to establish a contingency planning group. This letter has been copied to the Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Finance.Didn't this interventionist strategy involve an option for the wholesale dismissal of the Patrick's work force? Doesn't this demonstrate that you were oversighting and actively participating in a potentially illegal strategy from April last year?5286Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can confirm the previous answer I gave.52865286Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of recent studies comparing Australia's economic performance to that of other countries?5286Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Swan for his question. The World Economic Forum global competitiveness survey, which was released this month, shows that Australia has risen from 17th to 14th in terms of world competitiveness. The World Economic Forum noted that competitiveness is not a volatile phenomena subject to arbi trary change but the product of well-conceived economic programs.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—The Prime Minister and the Minister for Workplace Relations are getting their stories right.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will remain silent!CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is the importance of Australian institutions and Australian economic performance that is leading to Australia becoming a more competitive place in the world in which to do business. This follows a recent Institute for Management Development survey showing Australia's ranking moving up from 18th to 15th. Last night, a number of my colleagues and I had dinner with the board of the Australian Stock Exchange, which told us last night that the Australian Stock Exchange is now the second highest capitalised stock exchange outside of Tokyo in the region.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Have you got the story right?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The US technometric reports of global equity management centres found that Sydney has now replaced Hong Kong as the second biggest equity market in the Asia-Pacific after Tokyo. It has long been a goal of this government to turn Australia into a regional financial centre, to make this the second largest regional financial centre outside of Tokyo in the Asia-Pacific region. In relation to improvements in competitiveness, in relation to the fiscal position, in relation to interest rates and in relation to institutional reform, Australia is now becoming one of the best places to do business in the world, certainly in the region.Yesterday, this parliament passed a final part of legislation to introduce a totally new system for the financial regulation of superannuation, banking and other deposit taking institutions in this country. This is groundbreaking reform, leading edge, world class reform, with the introduction of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority with the new Australian Securities and Investments Commission with new prudential consumer focused regulation which will drive Australia further to take on the challenge to become the great regional financial centre. That, coupled with this government's proposed reforms to the taxation system, will be good for Australian business and good for Australian jobs.These are the important reforms that will drive the Australian economy into the future. They take leadership. They take concern. They take dedicated hard work. They take a determination to eschew empty populism to get firm results—firm results for Australian business and firm results for employment in this country.52875287Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his 23 May statement that:We want to reform the Australian waterfront, not because we want to destroy the MUA . . . [but] because that will be good for the Australian economy.Prime Minister, if your main goal on the waterfront was economic reform, why did you, on 21 April, agree to a strategy for sacking the work force and only then, in a handwritten afterthought, instruct Minister Sharp `as discussed with Peter Reith today, we need to build the economic case'? Prime Minister, shouldn't building the economic case have been the first thing you did, not the last? Doesn't this show that destroying the MUA, rather than economic reform, was always your primary motivation?5287Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Our motivation was to reform the Australian waterfront. It has never been the motivation of my government to destroy unions, but it was the motivation of the MUA to destroy the Patrick company, and that was known throughout the whole of this dispute. The member for Hotham can ask as many questions as he chooses to. The fact remains that we were committed to waterfront reform. We were committed to doing it within the laws of Australia. Indeed, a large amount of waterfront reform has been achieved.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Grey.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am afraid you have missed the opportunity. The honourable member for Grey has the call.52875287Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of any recent contribution to the tax reform debate from key community groups representing low income earners and the disadvantaged?5287Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He would note, as I have noted, that not only does business in this country support tax reform but the Australian Council of Social Service also supports tax reform. We welcome the fact that the Australian Council of Social Service has entered the tax reform debate, a debate which the Labor Party is incapable of entering because it is incapable of delivering any policy.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I hear the member for Jagajaga interject. I was hoping that she would because she got up here in this parliament and asked a question on Monday of the Prime Minister about the effect of broad based indirect tax and a goods and services tax on married pensioners and wealthy couples. She referred to research from ACOSS, which notes a price effect of any changes in relation to indirect tax. She said to the Prime Minister, `Wouldn't it be a terrible thing?' I interjected at the time, an interjection which she denied, that the research on which she relied, which she did not have the decency to disclose, was instructed to model all changes on the basis that there had been no compensation to any pension involved.What do you think you get from a piece of research when you say, `Model a tax change without any effect on a pension as a result'? What do you expect to get? At least ACOSS had the decency to say in its report, which the scaremongering shadow minister did not have the decency to say, `No attempt was made to model compensation for low income households.'Let me ask the scaremongering shadow minister this question: when the Labor Party introduced a two per cent increase in wholesale sales tax after the 1993 election when it took one rate from 10 per cent to 12 per cent, what compensation was there? When the Labor Party increased the wholesale sales tax from the 20 per cent rate to the 22 per cent rate, what compensation was there? When the Labor Party took away the l-a-w income tax cuts, what compensation was there? When the Labor Party increased the price of the excise on leaded and unleaded fuel, what compensation was there?We have a Labor Party that, in government, had no compunction whatsoever about increasing taxes without compensation. We get these little scaremongering cameos wandering in with the ACOSS research, not reading out the particular assumptions on which it is done, as part of some kind of attempt by the socialist left of the Labor Party to join forces with economic Hansonism.There are some people in the Labor Party who still think about economic issues. The last dinosaur in the Labor Party prepared to talk about economic issues was the member for Werriwa. Do you remember him? We do. He was removed from any involvement in the economic policy of the Australian Labor Party because he used to make Crean, Evans and co. look bad. Alan Wood summed it up in the Australian on 22 November 1997. I quote:One of Labor's bright young hopes, Mark Latham, has been heard to remark to colleagues: `Oppositions are allowed to be irresponsible.' But the last word belongs to a former Labor minister in the Hawke and Keating governments who confided his alarm that Labor might actually win the next election. `We could never govern,' he said, `with policies like these.'Well, ain't that the truth, Mr Speaker.52885288Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall asking yesterday: what is fair about sales tax on family cars? Prime Minister, isn't it the case that under a GST buyers of a top of the range Mercedes Benz would save up to $61,000? Isn't it also the case that on top of this saving the $28,000 of GST levied on a top-line Mercedes would be claimed back as a rebate if the car is acquired by a business— for example, as part of an executive salary package? Isn't it the case that, while rich people are getting these benefits, battlers buying a second-hand, currently untaxed VR Commodore from a used car dealer would be paying about $300 extra in GST for their family car? Prime Minister, what is fair about that?5288Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should wait until he sees the totality of the taxation package before he makes assumptions about fairness. What we do know is that his notion of fairness is to introduce his own GST without compensation. We know that his notion of fairness is to campaign in an election against a GST and then, immediately after the election, having won office on opposition to a GST and on the basis of a scurrilous reduction in personal income tax, after you are in office, without any further reference to the Australian people, to introduce your own GST and, for good measure and rubbing the noses of the poor in the dirt, without any compensation. We know that is fairness a la Beazley. I think the Australian people will have an opportunity, when the tax package comes out, to compare fairness a la the coalition with fairness a la Beazley, as demonstrated in the past.Distinguished Visitors528810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Page, I would like to welcome the Rt Hon. Sir Leon Brittan QC, Vice-President of the European Commission, to our parliament. I gather that he is accompanied by Mr Nicholas Clegg, a member of his cabinet. We also have present in the gallery today a delegation from the Republic of Poland. I extend a very warm welcome to them on behalf of all members.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice528852885288Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of an industrial campaign to mislead the public over federal government funding for schools in New South Wales? What is the government doing to ensure access and choice for parents and students in New South Wales schools?5289Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. I am aware of a dishonest and irresponsible campaign over Commonwealth funding for government schools currently being mounted by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Their mouthpiece in this House, of course, is the member for Werriwa. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has embarked on what the Sydney Morning Herald in an editorial last Thursday described as a series of transparent political stunts in its campaign to misrepresent the nature of Commonwealth support for schooling in New South Wales.It is worth making the point that this is the union that opposes literacy standards, that opposes proper reporting to parents, that prevents and opposes schools proactively helping school leavers to get jobs and has an abiding hatred of the right of parents to choose the school which best suits their child.Last week, the union made the outrageous claim that 42 non-government schools in New South Wales were receiving the same amount of Commonwealth funding as 478 government schools. Let me put firmly on the record that this is absolutely and totally false. The union, in making this outrageous claim, compared the funding for government schools from one specific government program—formerly the disadvantaged schools program, now absorbed into the overall literacy program—with total funding for non-government schools. In other words, it compared one fraction of the Commonwealth funding for government schools with the total funding which the government provides to these non-government schools.The facts are these: government schools in New South Wales this year will be receiving $520 million from the Commonwealth in direct funding, almost $50 million more than they received in the last year of the previous Labor government. What the Commonwealth is doing for government schools is not just about money. We have implemented the first national literacy plan, a series of initiatives to build quality in schooling, school based apprenticeships and the jobs pathway program.Last week, the union irresponsibly called a two-hour strike to promote its untruths. This union is setting out with the Labor Party to damage and talk down government schools and parents' faith in government schooling. It is seeking to erode public support for government schooling by its untruthful campaign. This government will continue to fight for quality education for all Australian children and will defend the right of parents, particularly low income parents, to choose their own schools.52895289Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Can the minister confirm that he received a letter from the Eltham Wildcats Basketball Club of Victoria, located in the electorate of my friend the member for Jagajaga? What is the minister's response to their claims that a 10 per cent goods and services tax will increase the cost of participation in basketball for an average family by $170 per annum? Minister, is this the fair and equitable outcome you are seeking from your GST taxation proposals?PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—How will they get compensation?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the member for Jagajaga is silent.5289Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The honourable gentleman will have to wait a little longer until the government's entire tax package is released. Let me simply say one thing about sport: one of the government's highest priorities in sport is to remove cheating through any measures we can take to combat the use of drugs. The same principle applies to the approach we take to the tax system. We want to eliminate tax cheats, and the biggest tax cheat this country has ever known is the Australian Labor Party for what you did in 1993.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the Government are silent—I call the member for McEwen.Honourable members interjecting—JT4BAILEYMrs Bailey—I am trying to be heard, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think that is a good idea. Can I have some silence in the House? The member for McEwen has the call.52905290Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I direct my question to the Minister for Trade. Could the minister advise the House what benefits there are for small agricultural producers from trade reform?5290Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for McEwen for her question. It is a timely question and it points to the practical breakthroughs we have achieved for hard-pressed exporters, including small business agricultural exporters. I want to add that I commend and congratulate the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs from both sides of the House—including the member for McEwen, who is the chair of that committee—for their recent report entitled Adjusting to agricultural trade reforms: Australia no longer down under . It is an excellent report with some very interesting recommendations.Trade reform has flowed from many representations over the years, including at the bilateral, regional and multilateral level. The federal coalition government spoke as late as this morning with the Europeans. Under our stewardship, we have emphasised a much more balanced approach, with a lot more energy in the bilaterals and a lot more focus on actual breakthroughs for small exporters.As a consequence, I am pleased to inform the House that Australia's rice is now going to Japan. Australia's rice producers can now look forward to more advantageous tender conditions, partially arising from a meeting between prime ministers Howard and Hashimoto a few months back. Agreement has also been reached for trial shipments of four varieties of Australian citrus into the Japanese markets, which I know the member for Mallee will be interested in. We have secured improved access for Australian seafood and lower tariffs for Australian sugar.For Mexico, there has been the Canola breakthrough, the coal breakthrough and the wool breakthrough, but also Australia's exports of livestock have shown strong increase following agreement by Mexico for more practical protocols to apply with regard to livestock imports. I commend my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy for his role on that. Also, in respect of Korea, there has been a very important breakthrough. For years, we have been held up on one key non-tariff measure in respect of Australian UHT milk. Negotiations have now led to the removal of the mandatory prescribed shelf-life and its replacement with one which is more reasonable and uniform. That is a breakthrough for the Australian dairy industry and it is good for jobs in the electorate of McEwen. In Saudi Arabia, negotiations have seen the reduction in the tariff on Australian exports of dairy products to Saudi Arabia from 12 per cent to zero per cent, providing new opportunities for Australian cheese and milk exporters.I want to say that that does not underestimate two things. Firstly, there is no such thing as a level playing field, and I have maintained that in a clear-cut way over my many years of being involved in the trade portfolio. Secondly, through dint of hard work a good deal of progress has been made. I note that page 25 of the committee report that I have has been highlighted. That page deals with Australian citrus production and exports, and it states that exports have tripled over recent years in the course of this decade. Full credit goes to the citrus industry for getting their exports up in difficult circumstances. Another page highlighted is page 116 of the report where it states that, through networking, Riversun Pty Ltd—involving citrus producers from Wakefield, the Riverina, Farrer and elsewhere—have now reached the stage where they are doing counter-cyclical, counter-seasonal exports to the USA with great success. They are putting more jobs into the Australian citrus industry, including the processing industry.I congratulate the small agribusinesses that have taken the export plunge. I will have more to say about the practical ways that the government is helping further. I commend the committee's report as being an extremely useful document. Given the fact that we produce five times more than we can consume, the report highlights why exports are important to the standard of living of all Australians, including for the future wellbeing of Australian farmers.52915291Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his GST will penalise volunteers working in the canteens for local sporting clubs who will be forced to be unpaid tax collectors and calculators for Peter Costello? Will the Prime Minister rule out a GST for local sporting groups?5291Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can confirm that nothing has changed for the Australian Labor Party. It is still in the business of negative carping and being a destructive opposition. Far be it for me to ever give political advice to the opposition but, if there was any message that came out of the Queensland election, it is that the Australian public are sick and tired of that kind of opposition.52915291Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What benefits are there for families in regional Australia with the government's introduction of the youth allowance?5291Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is very interesting that the Labor Party says that when you introduce a measure that will increase benefits for 153,000 young people in rural Australia that amounts to none. That shows the priorities of the Australian Labor Party. This measure will result in 153,000 young people gaining, and the great bulk of those in regional areas of Australia. Youth allowance recipients in rural and remote areas who have to live away from home to study or to seek work will be eligible for the higher away from home rate, which is $265.50 a fortnight for a single person. The away from home rate for 16- and 17-year olds has been increased to match that of those aged 18 or more, recognising that they face the same costs of living away from home as older students.Youth allowance recipients will now also be eligible for increased income support through access to rent assistance. Some young people will also be eligible for remote area allowance. Full-time tertiary students from rural and remote areas who receive youth allowance at the away from home rate may also receive assistance to travel from their homes to their place of study. For families with two or more tertiary students living away from home, the income limits for maximum youth allowance will be increased by no less than $7,400.This youth allowance measure not only brings great benefits to families in rural and regional Australia but also rebalances the incentives away from the current incentives for people to be on the dole in favour of incentives for people to be in training or to remain at school. That is a wholly desirable social development, and it is not surprising that it should be strongly supported by the coalition parties and strongly opposed by the Australian Labor Party. To rebalance the incentives in favour of training and school and against unemployment and being on the dole is a very worthy objective; and into the bargain we have provided increased assistance for people in remote and regional Australia—all round, a first-class package for the young of Australia and for their families.52915291Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is also to the Prime Minister. Mr Prime Minister, I ask on behalf of Joy Davidson, licensed post office operator at Eugowra, do your assurances that no post offices or mail centres will close also extend to postal agencies and licensed post offices in rural areas? And does it mean that any deregulation of delivery and postal charges will not harm such LPOs or agencies?5291Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Calare for that question. I share his interest in the constituent on whose behalf he has asked that question. I want to repeat the assurances that I gave at the weekend and again in the House earlier this week. On the score of retail outlets—and Mrs Davidson is the operator of one of those retail outlets—between 1989-90 and 1995-96 the total number of postal retail outlets fell by 277. I am very happy to say that in the 2¼ years that the coalition has been in government that trend has been reversed and there has been in that period an increase in total of 151 retail outlets. I say this very respectfully to the member: if you operate on the basis that action speaks louder than rhetoric, she has a lot more assurance by supporting the coalition than any alternative.52925292Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Can the minister advise the House how the government's policies have helped generate growth and jobs in regional communities such as Bendigo?5292Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the honourable member for Bendigo for his question. I think the statistic that was just announced to the House by the Prime Minister gives a very clear example of how our policies are benefiting regional Australia. Bendigo, like many other communities in regional Australia, is benefiting from coalition policies that are unashamedly targeting regional Australia—policies such as the Natural Heritage Trust fund, the Federation fund, the Agriculture—Advancing Australia fund, the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund, the $1.62 billion on roads in this year's budget; and the regional assistance program, to which this year's budget allocated $33 million to regional Australia, which was an increase of $13 million over the previous year.These policies and these outcomes for regional Australia are quite significant, and we are showing regional Australia quite clearly that we are committed to seeing a growth in their economic fortunes and also a growth in jobs in regional Australia. The question was from the member for Bendigo. It is interesting to note that between 1994 and 1998 there has been a 24 per cent reduction in unemployment in the area of Bendigo in Victoria, in large part due to the policies of the Howard-Fischer government which are unashamedly targeted at assisting regional Australia.It is interesting to note on the issue of roads that the Labor Party, when they put together the national highways system, ignored that part of Victoria. They did not include the Calder Highway and the national highway system. We have acknowledged that in our policy on roads and we have included the Calder Highway in the roads of national importance. The Labor Party do not have a policy on roads of national importance in regional Australia. The Labor Party have not got that in their platform. The Labor Party cannot stand up and say, `We are supporting regional Australia in this area.' We have committed $75 million to the Calder Highway, which services that part of Victoria.What about black spots? We reintroduced the black spots program, which has seen over 800 road safety black spots addressed in Australia already. But, most importantly, the government's policy of getting interest rates down and keeping them down is the most important benefit that we can give to regional Australia. It is the most important thing we can do for regional Australia and, in particular, for those people who live and work in Bendigo—those small business people, their employees, their primary producers and their exporters.The most important thing we can do is to have policies that keep interest rates down and maintain them at that low rate. What is Labor's answer for regional Australia? Labor's answer is to maintain and protect an antiquated tax system and to have a policy of high interest rates, and that equals fewer jobs. Yesterday in the MPI the member for Hotham said—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to relevance: he got asked a specific set of questions about Bendigo. What he has been on about ever since then is making a speech or a statement on regional policy. We would be happy to debate a statement on it. You ought to make one and we will get into it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will answer the question. He is ranging fairly widely from the actual question put to him. The Minister for Transport and Regional Development will complete his answer.SU5Mr VAILE—Yesterday the member for Hotham in the MPI on regional Australia said that Labor was capable of producing budget surpluses.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will answer the question.SU5Mr VAILE—The question was about regional Australia and the policies of the government of low interest rates. We are maintaining policies of lower interest rates, which is helping everybody in regional Australia. The Labor Party does not have a policy which sustains low interest rates.52935293Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—What about me?VD4Mr GARETH EVANS—You'll yet your turn.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—When? When?VD4Mr GARETH EVANS—How can you claim to have fireproofed or insulated the Australian economy from the impact of Asia? I repeat: how can you claim to have fireproofed or insulated the Australian economy from the impact Asia when today's MTIA survey of 250 leading manufacturers shows that their production levels are already at the lowest level for five years, that half of them are experiencing falling sales in orders and expecting more to come, that 39 per cent of them have already laid off workers in the June quarter, and that the outlook is for accelerated lay-offs in the next quarter?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister? The Treasurer.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Why not?5293Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Yes, I am perfectly happy to take that question from the Deputy Leader of the OppositionOpposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If members were silent, they could hear the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—because I did have an opportunity to see the survey. I begin by saying that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition takes great delight in saying that Asia will affect the Australian economy. It takes great delight—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, how can you be so miserable?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—right on cue, the um—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, er, um, er, er, oh, er, um, um, oh, er, um!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. The Treasurer will respond to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have warned him about this before.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect and the member for Burke and a few of the members of the opposition will remain silent.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Prospect! I warn the member for Prospect. Just keep quiet. The Treasurer will answer the question if the members of the opposition will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Right on cue, the Leader of the Opposition engages in his psychobabble.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Ha, ha!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Psychobabble followed by exaggerated laughter. I remind him of his Deputy Leader's criticism of the government in the Australian on 13 October 1997.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Come on. Smile, smile. Come on. Let us have the smirk!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on 13 October 1997:A Beazley government would hitch a harness to the demand being generated offshore, particularly in the Asian region, which was something the federal government was failing to properly achieve.Thailand had gone into an IMF program two months before. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then asked me about the MTIA quarterly business survey.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point or order: I go to the point of relevance from the `scarcely measurable' Treasurer, which was his assessment of the Asian situation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address the point or order or resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The question related to the MTIA survey talking about the worst production levels for five years, falling sales in orders, and 39 per cent laying off workers. We get this complacent nonsense from him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question. The Treasurer will answer the specific question asked of him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I have the MTIA survey of 24 June 1998 here. I have actually read it. I want to read to the House what it says:Pressure mounts on Australian manufacturing. Toughness and weakness of market conditions in the turbulent wake of the Asian economic crisis.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—Listen to this:Manufacturing is losing in the competitiveness stakes and there is no option if we wish to preserve these great industries in Australia but to continue to push for further reform starting with the tax system.So what does the MTIA say? The MTIA says that the thing you can really do for us is tax reform. What does the Labor Party say? The Labor Party says that the thing we don't want to do is have tax reform. This Labor Party stands against everything that could possibly help the MTIA or business in Australia. They can stand up here and read all of this report except for these words. Burn them indelibly in your mind. The policies of Hansonism are now being pursued by the Leader of the Opposition—vacuous, economic populism. He should burn into his mind this phrase, and this is from the report itself.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to relevance: the question was not about tax. It was about two wasted years of activity by this government which has failed to insulate the economy from the further effects of Asia that are bearing upon us. That is what the question was about.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Resume your seat. The Deputy Leader does not raise a valid point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As a clear reading of Hansard will show, the question was about the MTIA national survey of business conditions on 24 June 1998, and in the first paragraph the MTIA had one piece of advice for the government and the opposition. I read it again. I ask those people in the Labor Party who are embarrassed about their position to note it. It says:Manufacturing is losing in the competitiveness stakes and there is no option if we wish to preserve these great industries in Australia but to continue the push for further reform starting with the tax system.52945294Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House about the Australia/European Union ministerial consultations held this morning and the current state of Australia's relations with that union?5294Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Groom for his question. Mr Speaker, this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and I had the opportunity to meet with the Vice President of the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, in what are the 15th annual Australia-European Commission ministerial consultations.These talks were extremely successful. It was an opportunity for the government to continue the task of revitalising Australia's relationship with the European Union. We are revamping and rebuilding the relationship with the European Union. I believe, following the signing this time last year of the joint declaration on relations between Australia and the European Union and the initiatives that have flowed from that, as well as today's meetings, that the relationship is going through a period of substantial strengthening.Mr Speaker, let me just make sure that everybody understands the importance of this relationship to Australia. Europe, the European Union, invests $155 billion in the Australian economy. Some people are opposed to foreign investment in Australia, but that $155 billion worth of investment creates 300,000 jobs in Australia. That is money worth having and they are jobs well worth having.Australia invests, in direct investment in Europe, about $24 billion, and we earn about $500 million a year from that. Over the last year our exports to the European Union grew by around 21 per cent. So, Mr Speaker, the economic relationship is extremely strong. Our exports are growing strongly to the European Union.Where there have been disputes in the past over climate change, those disputes have been resolved. Where there have been disputes over agriculture, there still are tensions, but we are heading in the right direction. So this is a relationship which is growing and strengthening all the time.52955295Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. Does the minister recall telling Laurie Oakes last April, in relation to his promise to create 200,000 new manufacturing jobs by the year 2000, that:I have no doubt we can reach it.Is he aware that, according to the latest ABS data, manufacturing jobs have actually gone backwards since the last election, including 7,000 lost in the Illawarra and 1,300 lost in Gippsland? Minister, hasn't your 200,000 jobs target become a joke, particularly in regional Australia?5295Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—Mr Speaker, the question, of course, is based on the fact that everyone has forgotten the history because, between 1989 and 1993—RH4KERRMr Kerr—What is your excuse for not knowing this time?EI4Mr MOORE—Between 1989 and 1993, the Labor Party rubbed out 200,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, could I take a point of order on relevance? The question was specifically related to a 200,000 job undertaking from the time of their election to the year 2000. It has gone backwards by at least 8,000 in those areas. Where is the relevance of the answer?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question has been asked. The minister will respond to the question asked of him by the honourable member for Wills.EI4Mr MOORE—As I was saying, Mr Speaker, between the period 1989 and 1993, some 200,000 jobs were lost by the Labor Party in the manufacturing sector. This contrasts with the government's record since March 1996 of creating new jobs in the order of 250,000 across the whole economy. I draw that contrast because this government has worked on economic policy in a way in which you never could and never did.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. If you are going to take those 250,000, you would compare it with the 500,000 in the three years. Let me go to relevance. If there are 200,000 manufacturing jobs—that was the question: 200,000 manufacturing jobs. That is not an answer to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised his point of order. The minister will be relevant to the question asked.EI4Mr MOORE—Mr Speaker, what I was pointing out was that the Labor Party lost 200,000 jobs but, since we have come to government, because of our pursuit of economic policy, because we have moved to balance the books, we have got interest rates down and we have got inflation down. You have seen high rates of growth in Australia up to this present moment. As a consequence of that, 250,000 have been found. As a consequence of the government's process on policy development—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister at the moment is relevant—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I challenge that.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. The Leader of the Opposition wishes to raise a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Yes. It is on relevance. I leave aside the point of 560,000 jobs created before they came in—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not argue the case. He will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—and go to the 200,000 manufacturing jobs which he has not addressed by one word.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that raising a point of order—ZJ6BARRESIMr Barresi—Throw him out.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The member for Deakin is not helping. The Leader of the Opposition knows that, if he wishes to raise a point of order, it needs to be specific and not argue the case being presented by the minister responding. The minister will answer the question specifically asked of him by the honourable member for Wills.EI4Mr MOORE—As I was saying before the hurt was hitting the Leader of the Opposition, the government's record has been particularly good in job creation since we came to office. That came about because of the policies we have been pursuing. In relation to that, as we press on with further reforms—as the Treasurer said with the announcement of tax reform which will be good for manufacturing and which will be good for jobs—we will show you and show the Labor Party the record that you really have in relation to employment.52965296Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister outline to the House what action the government is taking to apprehend and remove people who overstay their visas and who live or work in Australia illegally? What success are these measures having?5296Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Canning for her question in relation to the issue of illegal entrants who may be in Australia and who may be working in the Australian community. I would like to put before the House some of the changes that have occurred and the manner in which these issues are being addressed, but also to make it very clear that this is one area in which there is often a good deal of misrepresentation and myth about the size and the extent of the problem in Australia. From time to time I have heard it alleged that 400,000 people are illegally in one suburb of Sydney.K26LATHAMMr Latham—It's Turramurra!0J4Mr RUDDOCK—That is not one of the suburbs I have heard about. We do have a very accurate picture of the extent to which such a problem exists because we have a universal visa system which enables us to see which people have entered Australia and remain here, and we are able to log them off against those who have in fact left. We estimate that there are around 50,000 people illegally here at any one time. There would be another group of people who are here illegally and who may have made applications and would be counted in addition.I want to make this point very clear: we do encourage bona fide travel to Australia of visitors, students and temporary entrants. There is a small percentage of visitors who come, overstay and work. We have changed the program quite significantly in relation to the way in which these issues are addressed. No longer are we putting our compliance resources into employer awareness; we have in fact put in place a proactive policy of location. During the government's first year in office, the locations have increased by 30 per cent—up from 7,800 in 1995-96 to 10,138 in 1996-97. The locations have jumped again in 1997-98, to 11,600, and it is estimated that this year it will be in the vicinity of 13,000. These measures are complemented by a range of initiatives which include following up refusal decisions, data matching, information provided by the community and police referrals. It is an important part of our approach to ensuring that the immigration program is conducted with integrity.On 28 May I outlined some other measures that we took dealing with the need for integrity in this area. I quoted the honourable member for Lalor from a book that had recently been written by a Mr Paul Sheehan. That evidenced some agreement that there was a need for a proactive approach in this area. After I read that quote, the honourable member made a personal explanation. He had this to say:. . . [This] is a significant misrepresentation. The author at no time sought to check the accuracy of the words attributed to me and featured last Saturday . . .. . . . . . . . .The words attributed to me are a very rough paraphrase of what I said. As quoted, they completely misrepresent my position.The honourable member may not have seen it today, but there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald .KH4JONESMr Barry Jones—Oh yes, I have. Indeed I have.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—It says—KH4JONESMr Barry Jones—Yes, but it is not right.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I am sure honourable members would be interested to hear from you later—KH4JONESMr Barry Jones—Indeed you will.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—If you have any disagreement in relation to this issueKH4JONESMr Barry Jones—Quite.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—And, if you do, I would value your further comments by way of personal explanation later on.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Why weren't you polite enough to raise it with him after doing that earlier.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Because I think it is important—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will answer the question, not engage in cross-chat across the floor.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Why didn't you raise it with the honourable member first?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I think it is important—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister will answer the question and not respond to interjections from the Opposition. He should address his reply through the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I think it is important when the issues are—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister was asked a specific set of questions about visas; he answered those questions specifically. He is now digressing from that to a general discursing on topics related to immigration more broadly and using it as an opportunity to attack another member who is denying the veracity of the report. It has nothing to do with the question he was asked.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I have a general point of order about frivolous points of order. I think most members would appreciate that this week there has been a real effort to lift standards.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, yes!WI4REITHMr Reith—Ministers have been answering questions succinctly and in a timely way, but we are already seeing today that the Labor Party are abandoning any attempt to see a reasonable question time. This is yet another point of order as a point of disruption by the Leader of the Opposition, and I invite you to bring him to order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his place, and the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Go and feed your dogs, Reithie!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Batman will remain silent, I might advise the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that, before the House sat today, the member for Lalor advised that he intended to make a personal explanation on the matter to which you intend to refer. If the minister wishes to conclude his response he may do so, but he should be specifically relevant to the question asked of him.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I look to the personal explanation by the member and the addressing of the seven points made in the article.52975297Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Speaking of newspaper articles, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it the case that the Courier-Mail offered you on the Thursday before the Queensland state election front page space in the next day's edition to give a reasoned argument why Queenslanders should not vote for One Nation candidates in that election? Is it the case that your office was initially enthusiastic? Why did you ultimately decline? Given that you had already decided some weeks before to put One Nation last in your own seat because that party makes some minorities in our community feel uneasy and unwelcome, shouldn't you have shared your views with the people of Queensland? Finally, do you agree in retrospect with your Liberal deputy, the Treasurer, that a One Nation last strategy in Queensland would have secured a different and better outcome?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition when presenting questions should not argue the case, as he did in that instance. The matter is of general public policy significance, and I ask the Prime Minister to respond.5298Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have to say that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I have never been guaranteed a front page by any newspaper in my political career.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Why didn't you use it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane has been warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was invited to contribute an article in relation to the Queensland election generally, not in the terms alleged by the Leader of the Opposition. I took the view that, it being a state election, it was a matter for Mr Borbidge and Mrs Sheldon.Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations529815:00:005298Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in the answer to a question that he had arranged for him on comments made by me both last night and this morning in relation to the Alice Springs to Darwin railway line. He took this very selective quote on the question of Mr Everald Compton's proposal for a link through the eastern states:And if Everald can get his rail link up, that's cool, that's great, all strength to his right arm.He then pointed out today that what I had said was that it would have been advisable had he not proceeded at this point until the Darwin to Alice Springs railway line was set in concrete—or words to that effect. I now quote from the transcript, because what happened then was a very selective quote by the Prime Minister. I was asked:Kim Beazley, first up, do you support the Prime Minister's feasibility study on the Melbourne to Darwin rail link?I replied:. . . on Everald Compton's suggestions, I think it's very unfortunate for him that he introduced him—WI4REITHMr Reith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a speech. The Leader of the Opposition has to spell out where he has been misrepresented, not give us a speech. Don't give us your flimsy excuses.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is making a personal explanation. He is to be precise as to where he has been misrepresented and keep his response as brief as possible.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I am adding the two sentences prior to the sentence that was quoted by the Prime Minister, which changes the context completely and therefore establishes the point of misrepresentation. I return to the point. I said:. . . on Everald Compton's suggestions, I think it's very unfortunate for him—that is, the Prime Minister—that he introduced him at this point of time because he's a terrific bloke . . . That is, Everald. O'Brien then said:This is on the rail link?I replied:Absolutely, on the rail link. But, nevertheless, I'm a very strong advocate of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway line. As an old Defence Minister, I actually happen to think it's essential. So, I hope that that one proceeds. And if Everald can get his rail link up, that's cool, that's great . . . The point is that I clearly established that it was unfortunate the Prime Minister went down the road he did. His timing was absurd but his press conference was delightful.15:02:005299Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONESKH4LalorALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?KH4Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONES—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.KH4Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONES—The article by Paul Sheehan in today's Sydney Morning Herald headed `Memory loss left Barry wishing he were speechless' compounds his misrepresentation of my position on immigration and multiculturalism. It relates to his account of a speech I gave in Sydney on 30 August 1997 to Australians for Ecologically Sustainable Population. His account appeared in the book Among the Barbarians , in articles for the Sydney Morning Herald , the Age , and parallel features in the Australian Financial Review and the Australian .I made a personal explanation in the House on 28 May, in response to a dorothy dixer from the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent) to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) which gave a misleading impression of my views, relying on Mr Sheehan's book. Mr Sheehan writes in today's Herald that in my personal explanation, I dug myself into a hole and `in just three minutes'—less than two actually—I `managed to make seven statements that were untrue'.Misleading the House is a deeply serious offence—but so is misleading the public. I have never met Mr Sheehan, nor talked with him by telephone. I wrote letters of protest to: the Herald—unpublished; the Age—published, with excisions; and the Australian—published. On 8 June I faxed a strong letter of protest to Mr Sheehan. I have had no acknowledgment from him.I turn to the seven accusations he makes. The first is that Sheehan quotes me as saying in the personal explanation: The material attributed to me—then a hiatus of three dots—is a significant misrepresentation. Those three dots are a dead giveaway. Hansard on page 3957 quotes the full text:The words—not the material—attributed to me are a very rough paraphrase of what I said. As quoted, they completely misrepresent my position.The second accusation is that I said:The author at no time sought to check the accuracy of the words attributed to me.The context of the sentence can only mean, `Check the accuracy with me.' I am no position to say what he did with anyone else. The tear-out of my handwritten corrections to the transcript of proceedings printed in today's Herald is particularly interesting. There is a significant difference between the words he attributed to me in his article and the corrected text reproduced in the tear-out. One contradicts the other.The third accusation is that I had claimed that I had `delivered a prepared speech to a largely hostile audience'. It is clear from the transcript that I deviated from, and made interpolations in, my prepared text. The transcript made it clear that I thought the audience was `not at all relaxed' with my point of view and there was probably majority support for the Hanson phenomenon.The fourth accusation concerns my saying that `the words referred to were not in that speech'—that is, my prepared, printed speech. Indeed, they are not.The fifth point he makes is that it was not true for me to say, `Later I answered a question in which I attempted to explain the rise of the Hanson phenomenon,' because I had made the comments in the body of the speech. On this point, Sheehan is correct. The transcript makes it clear that it was an interpolation, not at question time. My recollection was faulty, and I apologise for inadvertently misleading the House on this one point.With regard to accusations 6 and 7, I said:The words attributed to me are a very rough paraphrase of what I said. As quoted, they completely misrepresent my position.Sheehan says that this is not true. Sheehan used my remarks as the peg on which to hang an attack on multiculturalism and the ALP and to suggest that as `an honourable man'—shades of Mark Antony—I supported his interpretation. I do not.Sheehan writes:The handling of it [immigration] by the previous [Labour] government. . . was less than distinguished.But I did not say that, as the corrected transcript makes clear. The `it' was not `immigration', a short-term problem, but `the population issue', quite a different matter.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will remain silent so that we can all hear the member for Lalor.KH4Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONES—We reach the climax. His bad faith is also demonstrated by what he left out of the published tear-out: the words `the Liberals'. What I said was—and you can see it—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the honourable member for Lalor has well and truly registered the point that he has been misrepresented.KH4Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONES—What I actually said was:There was that sense that Labor might get the Greek vote `locked up', or, the Liberals might get the Chinese vote `locked up'.It would spoil Sheehan's story—or the minister's response—to get the facts straight. The reference to the Liberals is torn out of the tear-away. I seek leave to table a copy of the corrected transcript and of my letter of 8 June to Sheehan.Leave granted.15:07:005300Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Proceed.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—In question time earlier the Treasurer (Mr Costello) attributed to me words used by Mr Alan Wood in the Australian newspaper last year to the effect that oppositions are allowed to be irresponsible. Never in my life have I met or spoken to Mr Wood, nor do I have any recollection whatsoever of ever using words like that in conversation with any of my colleagues. In fact, I would have thought we are a rather responsible opposition—responsible for getting rid of the bad government opposite.Questions to the Speaker530053005300Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Mr Speaker, you may be aware of the practice that grants the Prime Minister, ministers, the Leader of the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition the facility to access Hansard transcripts of questions and answers immediately after question time. This facility is not available to Independent members. Given the burgeoning numbers in this section of the House, will Mr Speaker consider recommending that facility be granted to the Independents?5300Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable member for Dickson for his inquiry. There is certainly a requirement that all members in this place, as far as possible, be treated equally. I will take on board the request made to me and see what reasonably practical solution is available and respond to him in due course.53005300Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a request of you in accordance with standing order 150 to contact the office of the Minister for Defence in relation to question No. 2825 placed on the Notice Paper on 31 March.5300Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—While I am quite prepared to write to him as you request, it might be easier to talk to him on the plane—but I shall certainly write as you request in accordance with the standing orders.Documents53005300Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—A paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Higher Education Funding Act—Report detailing determinations made in 1997.Matters of Public Importance5301530110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The impact of the GST on sport.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—15:10:005301Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—On 2 May 1995 John Howard, then Leader of the Opposition, said:There's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy. Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters in the last election.This is the same Prime Minister who, at every opportunity, rushes to be embraced by the sports men and women of this country. This is the same Prime Minister who visited the workers at Newcastle via the test at Lord's. This is the same Prime Minister who would rush off to the grand final breakfast involving the St George Rugby League Football Club, a club which he patronises and which he supports. This is the same Prime Minister who now says to all of those sporting organisations in Australia, `Get yourselves ready to embrace tax reform'—and for that read the imposition of a goods and services tax.Not only does the Prime Minister try to rap himself and reflect the glory of Australia's sports men and women but so too does the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson). In one of the most shameful acts of partisanship I can recall in this parliament, this minister for sport in April of this year told the Australian Institute of Sport to have representative sports men and women at the AIS come over here to a reception for government members only. He told the Australian Institute of Sport to have name tags on those elite athletes and to have on those name tags the electorates from which those elite athletes came so it would make it easier for coalition members to identify them and have their photographs taken.This is the same minister who then had the cheek to send the $7,000 bill to the AIS and said, `You pay for it.' This is the same minister who, as part of this government, wants to say to ordinary people that look after sports teams in Australia, `Cop a GST.' This is the same minister and the same Prime Minister who are going to say to the people who are there in a voluntary capacity working for the Collegians rugby league football club in my electorate or the Fairy Meadow netball club in my electorate or any of the other sporting organisations at the community level, `Get ready to be tax collectors for Peter Costello,' because, when the GST comes, that is exactly what is going to happen.Sport in this country is a major industry and sport is rightly concerned about the impact of any tax changes that that might have on it. Why? Because in the GST it is the services component that is affected the most. At the moment, there are no taxes imposed on things like entrance fees to sporting endeavours. There are no taxes on registration fees. There are no taxes on admission charges. There are no taxes on uniforms. There are no taxes on coaching courses. There are no taxes on travel to tournaments and so on. But if you happen to be a parent that is operating a small sporting organisation in a voluntary capacity, guess what? You are about to be made a tax collector for this government. You are about to have to go and learn to deal with the myriad of forms that a GST will impose.What do I base this assumption on? I base it on this. I had the opportunity to slide over to New Zealand a few months ago. I thought, `They've got a GST system. What does that do for small community sporting organisations of the type I have mentioned'? What about the Balgownie soccer club that my young bloke used to play for and the Balgownie cricket club that he plays for now? What does it mean to the cricket or soccer club and for the hundreds of kids that come along and play on a Saturday morning and maybe train twice a week? What does it mean for the mums and dads that work in a voluntary capacity to man the canteen? What does it mean for those mums and dads who, in a voluntary capacity, come along and say, `Is there anything we can do to raise some money for our club to help our kids'? Isn't it better to have the kids off the street playing sport than hanging around with knives in George Street? I think most people would probably say, `Yes, it is.' What is the story then for these small sporting organisations in New Zealand?Mr Hockey interjecting—8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—I am not surprised that the member for North Sydney has stuck his head in. North Sydney Rugby League Club is one of the most affluent teams in the National Rugby League and it got $24 million from two levels of government to move to Gosford. No wonder he is sticking his bib into a debate like this.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—It's about sport—what's wrong with that?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for North Sydney will remain silent.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—As I was saying, this is the first booklet for GST in New Zealand—GST: Do you need to register? In 30-odd pages it says whether or not you are part of it. If you are a small community sporting organisation, the answer is yes. Here is a good one: The GST Guide . Page after page tells how to go about keeping every invoice that comes in. You must keep an invoice for every pie you buy for the canteen. You must keep an invoice for every little bit of sauce that comes into the joint. Then you add it up every six months, because otherwise Peter Costello's GST police are going to come along and grab you and ask, `Where is this information?' Is it required? You better believe it!Here are only a couple of the forms that you must fill in in New Zealand to fulfil your obligation as a tax collector for that particular government. We are saying that the same will apply here. How insidious is the GST when people write to you saying that they are a bit concerned about the GST because when it was on the agenda in 1993 people clearly pointed out that it was going to disadvantage small community organisations. DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What about sports rorts?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for North Sydney will remain silent.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—Let us not worry about the elite like the North Sydney Rugby League Club. Let us worry about the Balgownie Junior Soccer Club, let us worry about the Fairy Meadow Netball Club and these sorts of organisations and the effect it will have on them. One example we asked about in question time today related to the Eltham Wildcats Basketball Club. We did not solicit this information; it was advanced to us because members of that club are concerned. Their concern is that, according to all these proposals for a GST, the sorts of things that are going to be affected for them are entry fees to venues, scoresheet charges, club subscriptions and the sale of fundraising chocolates.I have here a block of chocolate. Mr Deputy Speaker, how many of these have you seen in your time? How many of these have your kids walked in the door with and said, `These are $2 a throw'? But it is now going to cost more because of the 10 per cent GST. The Eltham Wildcats in Victoria are saying that they will have to charge and collect a GST on fundraising chocolates to buy uniforms for their kids so they can play basketball.This government thinks that that is great idea. As was pointed out in the question asked in question time, with a 10 per cent goods and services tax the average family in the Wildcats Basketball Club is going to end up paying an extra $170 per year just to participate in basketball.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—What did sports rorts cost?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—The member for North Sydney would know, because he follows sport—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I strongly caution the member for North Sydney. I remind all members of this House that, if I warn, I only warn once.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—As I was saying, in respect of this particular basketball club, that is the level at which people are going to be impact ed upon. As the member for North Sydney would know as someone who supports sport, it is discretionary spending if people want to go to sporting activities. If you add an extra impost for a family, it is going to discourage people from going.The minister at the table, the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson), should know that as well. Let us move to the elite end of the spectrum and compare that with taking your kids to the football or the soccer as a family outing. When the North Sydney Bears move to Graham Park next year, the first person in the door will probably the member for North Sydney because he wants to be associated with them and he would have to fork out as well.Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite you to come to Wollongong at any time, but if you came down this Sunday to the Steelers versus North Queensland match to see the Steelers win I have done a calculation of how much it would cost. Based on a family of four—two parents, a 14-year-old child and a 17-year-old—the costs would be: $80 for tickets for entry and seating in the western grandstand; $18.60 for the bus trip from Thirroul and back for the parents and the child; $3.20 for the bus fare for the 14-year-old; $3.50 for a copy of Rugby League Week; and $4 for some doubles. If you add to that the cost of a can of beer—not for the kids but for the parents—a can of soft drink, a couple of steak sandwiches, a couple of bags of chips, a supporters kit—one of the new Steelers hammers that they play with; the sorts of things that kids want to get at the footy—the total cost would be $137.90. But a 10 per cent GST on top of that blows that figure out to $151.69 to take the kids to the footy.MG4LEEMr Lee—How much?8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—With a GST imposed, it would cost $151.69 this Sunday to see the Steelers beat North Queensland. Yet this government thinks that is very clever. The minister has a part to play in this as well. Some very insightful words were uttered by the minister at the National Press Club on 27 May this year when he was asked about the GST and its impact on sport, particularly on sports sponsorship. He is a great advocate of sports sponsorship. He advocates that the private sector should pick it up and the government should not be involved. I heard him talk about this before. He said:Let me make a revelation. There is one person in the federal parliament who has operated a business in a jurisdiction with a broad based consumption tax, and that is me. I am the only person in the federal parliament who knows what it is like to run a business where you pay, in my case, VAT. I built a golf course in Scotland before I was elected and it was one of the reasons I sought election to this parliament.I do not know whether that was the golf course building or the VAT! He went on to say:Because it is such a simple, wonderful system of dealing with revenue raising through goods and services . . . As far as this minister is concerned, the cost of increasing things like registration fees is revenue raising. At the Balgownie soccer club, where my kids have been involved, registering players each year would have a 10 per cent goods and services tax. Entry fees to some of these games, maybe on a gala day when you have to buy a few raffle tickets and so on, would have a 10 per cent goods and services tax. If you went to the local swimming pool after the game to cool down, again you would have to pay GST.Under the GST, a 10 per cent tax will be introduced on uniforms, including tracksuits, shorts, jumpers and socks et cetera. The list goes on. It is not there at the moment, but parents will be expected to pick up the cost of it. It will affect coaching courses, including swimming and aerobics camps, tae kwon do and any of the self-defence classes as well as referees courses and so on. My young bloke is now a referee in the junior rugby league in Illawarra. He delights in the fact that he can earn a little pocket money, but a 10 per cent GST will mean that the clubs will have to find 10 per cent extra to pay him. It means that that cost will be passed on all the way down the line.The minister is part of a government that would like to say to us that a GST, adding a brand new set of taxes on a services component of the Australian economy where currently no tax exists, makes clever sense. Ask any parent whether they think it is very clever for anyone to come along and say, `We want you to play more sport. If it improves your health and your physical capacity, that is good because it saves the government money down the line.' It is the old line that ministers for sport have always used. I know that the current minister subscribes to that view as well. What we are going to say at the same time is, `To do that, you will be charged 10 per cent to buy all the goods and services associated with that participation.'The goods and services tax that has been proposed here is a gigantic sports threat. It is nothing more and nothing less. It is to be imposed on people because of some ideological bent of a government that wants to destroy the livelihood of the volunteers that come along to the canteens of every sporting organisation in Australia. We are not worried about the small business component here but about the volunteers. Do you know who the hardest person to find in New Zealand is these days? It is somebody who will be a treasurer in a voluntary sporting organisation. Why would they bother? They know that they will have to keep all the paperwork and provide all the information to the GST tax collectors. They would become a tax collector for the Prime Minister of Australia because of the imposition of this tax. It is an outrage. The sporting communities are waking up to it and will respond accordingly. (Time expired)15:25:005304Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—That was a great piece of theatre from my friend the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin). I ask the House to first consider why, if it is such a bad idea, so many senior members of the Labor Party support the GST? Is it such a bad idea to do something to reform one of the worst tax systems in the world? Australia shares its tax system with, among other models of economic rectitude, Swaziland, Ghana, Jordan and Pakistan. These are fine countries, but they are not the sort of economies that I would want to see Australia modelled on.Let us get to a few names. Why is it that Gareth Evans supports a broadening of the tax base? Why is it that Kim Beazley supports a broadening of the tax base?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The minister will refer to members by their correct titles.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—I stand corrected. Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans), the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham), among others, the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) and former ministers of past Labor governments support tax reform and a broadening of the indirect tax base? They have been outed, and we all know it.Page 161 of Paul Kelly's book The end of certainty mentions option C that the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, put to the tax summit, the leaders of his party and the union movement. He talks about a day where they had three meetings and spent 23 hours discussing a draft white paper, and states:It was an extraordinary event. Only Hawke, Gareth Evans, Kim Beazley and Susan Ryan supported Keating's position.Here you have both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the spokesman on treasury matters, outed for supporting a consumption tax.It is not surprising that they would put forth and debate here and around Australia a contrary view. It would not be the first time that a senior member of the Labor Party had said something to the Australian public that he or she did not actually believe and then later, when they gained office, did exactly the opposite. The member for Melbourne put a paper to the ALP's Living Standards and Employment Committee entitled `Populism and Rationalism'. It is something that was made much of in debate in this chamber last year, as I recall. The member for Melbourne said:A more modest restructuring of sales tax, extending it to certain services and rationalising its existing incidence would be logical.There you have it. We and the Australian public know that senior members of the opposition support this. In their hearts, they know that Australia needs a better tax system. In opposing the notion that we do, the burden then falls upon them to defend what we have now, which is a system whereby the burden on Australia's average income earners, many of whom are probably among the largest users of sport in this country, is far too high.There has been a lot of talk lately about the Australian public being disappointed with the way that these issues are debated and treated in our national political forum. It is not surprising that they are disappointed when half of the parliament puts forth a proposition that everyone knows their leadership does not support. They say, `It is something that we know is right, but we won't dare utter it because it might be true. We'll just let the other side'—in this case, the government—`explain in a straightforward fashion what is wrong with the existing system and what we ought to do in the national interest to make it fairer and more efficient.'The proposition that a broad based indirect tax is somehow detrimental to sport strikes me as wrong. If you smooth out the revenue raised across all the goods and services—the whole spectrum of things that a citizen of Australia, be they on a low income or a high income, consumes—and smooth out the incidence of taxation, as the member for Melbourne referred to it, you do not disadvantage any particular sector, provided that you take compensatory measures on the other hand.Of course there are people—those, for example, on fixed incomes and certainly those on low and middle incomes—who, to my mind, are severely disadvantaged by the existing system. In his press release from August last year, the Prime Minister clearly instructed the taxation task force that, first of all, any proposal for a new tax system should not increase the overall tax burden. That is not to say, as you did in the debate, that smoothing out the taxation of goods into a flat rate on all goods and services would somehow impose an extra burden on the citizens, that suddenly they would find there was a tax on goods where none existed before, despite the fact that the tax on some of the goods that they purchase now— especially the 22 per cent on sporting goods—would go down.If you are going to be straightforward you ought to put the whole spectrum of reform in the debate. Just to talk about trying to smooth out the incidence of tax on goods across the whole spectrum that citizens purchase without talking about the measures that we would take to compensate them for that makes it an entirely false proposition. That is why people don't believe you when you say that somehow life for those of us who enjoy sport and purchase various goods and services as we watch sport or participate will suddenly get a lot worse. It is false.Generally speaking, if you want to confer an advantage on everyone, you make sure that people who are cheating, or people who have much greater wealth than those on the lower end of the income spectrum, pay their fair share of tax. That is really what I meant when I said, in my answer in question time today, that part of this whole effort is to deal with people who, in one form or another, are cheating. They are not paying their fair share of tax because they are taking advantage of the loopholes that exist in the current tax system—loopholes that have developed over the years despite various governments' efforts to patch them. The development of our common law—through many rather peculiar High Court decisions over the years—has brought about the worst taxation system in the world. The burden falls far too heavily on those of middle and lower income, and those who can afford to purchase services such as accountancy can take advantage of these loopholes that exist—or that the courts will allow—to get away with not paying their fair share. Therefore, it is not fair.Your first proposition that such a tax—for example, 10 per cent on sporting services—means fewer people will be able to afford it, and therefore we will all be worse off, is false, simply because compensatory measures will be taken to make sure that the overall burden is not increased. I contrast that with what was done to us in 1993. In 1993 the government of the day, led by Paul Keating, went to the electorate proposing tax cuts, describing them in that trite phrase that none of us will ever forget—l-a-w, law. After the election, in which you had argued that John Hewson's package was going to destroy life in Australia as we knew it, not only did you take away those income tax cuts that you had promised but you imposed a greater burden on the indirect tax in this country and wholesale sales tax. And you increased it without compensatory measures being taken to assist people to pay it. You took from them money that they otherwise should have had in their pocket to spend on things like the bar of chocolate that you have in your pocket.What we are saying is that we want to render the system more efficient and, in doing so, we want to provide compensatory measures by way of reductions in other forms of taxation to make sure that the overall burden is no greater than at present. In your words, this is some sort of attack on the core of Australian life and the enjoyment of sport—which is nonsense.The second thing you made much of was that administering a broad based indirect tax will somehow crush the capacity of volunteers in the small sports clubs of this country to manage their own affairs. And, indeed, you referred to the remarks I had made at the National Press Club about having actually run a small enterprise in a jurisdiction that had such a tax—and that was Britain. I said plainly there that I thought the system was so good, so simple and so fair that it was worth making an effort in public life in Australia to introduce such a simple and fair system here. The fact is that, in a small sports club, whatever comes out in the package that is released by the government—and it will only be a matter of a few weeks—whatever thresholds are established for the turnover of small clubs, there will be those who may have the choice to be in the system, to register to pay GST and to be rebated for the GST that they may pay for the goods and services they purchase.All you have to do is run a simple cash book to record the invoices that you issue when you charge for your services—whether it is subscription fees or other sorts of goods or services you may sell—and, likewise, you record the receipts that you gather when you buy the services to run the club. I did it in my business and it was quite simple. These days, of course, 90 per cent of business run even small accounting exercises like that with a laptop PC and some software and at the end of the month or at the end of the quarter—wherever they operate and on whatever scale—it is a simple matter to add up electronically how much they have paid out and how much they have charged and arrive at a simple equation of the difference. It could not be simpler, but the beauty of such a result is that we will have a system that makes the wealthiest people in the country pay their fair share and does something to put money back into the pockets of the families who enjoy sport at a community level.We know you believe in it. We know your leader does. We know your deputy leader does. We know the member for Melbourne does. I am sure the member for Werriwa does: you could not be described as intelligent—as many people describe you, Mark—without believing that rendering one of the worst systems in the world into one of the best systems in the world is not a sensible thing for this country to do. It has happened before and it is going to happen again: in this forthcoming election campaign the Labor Party will go around promising a tax cut—whether you call it a tax credit or whatever you want. If you succeeded in gaining election as the next government of this country, I am quite sure that you would do what you did last time—that is, increase the burden by way of an indirect tax that you cannot see.How many people out there know that they pay 22 per cent on sporting goods? Very few do. A few might remember that they used to pay a little less until the Labor Party won an election in 1993 and had the opportunity to do away with the tax cuts that they had promised that would have put more money back into the pockets of ordinary Australians and allowed them to spend the money on sport, goods or chocolate. You took them away and you made them pay more for the basketballs that the Eltham Wildcats need to conduct their games.I look forward to receiving the letter. I am sure it is there in my office somewhere. I will go back and ask for it, and I will pen them a personal reply describing to them how this country ought to be governed in the future with the best tax system in the world, not the worst.15:38:005307Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I will tell you what the Labor Party does promise to do—that is, go out into the electorate and expose the GST of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for what it is. Simply, it is a transfer of the tax burden from business, particularly big business, to ordinary Australian families.I watched the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) getting very excited up there on the backbench during the contribution of the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin). I watched with great humour really. I thought it was only marginal coalition members who were getting a little bit feral, as was reported in the paper this morning, but it seems that even members like the member for North Sydney, with his large margin, are apparently getting a little bit concerned about their position in this place.Why wouldn't they be going feral? Their Prime Minister is on a fast train to political destruction and does not know how to get off. Nothing much is going right for him: all the economic fundamentals are in decline, the impact of the Asian crisis grows worse, the Queensland election result and the implications flowing from it fall hardest on his side of the fence and, of course, his popularity is in rapid decline.Now he wants to impose a goods and services tax on Australian families. Why wouldn't his backbench be so feral? But you watch them get a little bit more excited over the coming months. You watch them get more excited as older Australians start ringing them and going into their offices complaining about the impact of John Howard's GST on them. You wait until their constituents start phoning them and complaining about the impact of the Prime Minister's GST on their family budgets.You wait until they really start to put their mind to the Prime Minister's GST and start to really think about the fact that this GST will impact upon just about everything they buy and every service they engage, whether it be the hairdresser, a plumber, a motor mechanic or, indeed, a lawyer or an accountant. You just wait until their small business operators start ringing them complaining that they are about to become one of John Howard's 1.3 million unpaid tax collectors.You just wait until their constituents realise that John Howard's GST is going to hit their greatest love of all—that is, their sport. You just wait until they start to realise that the ticket to the football game is going to cost them just that bit more—10 per cent more at least. You wait until they start to realise that the beer and the meat pie they have there will cost them more as a result of the Prime Minister's obsession with the GST. You wait until they start to realise that their golf shirts, their football boots, their netball skirts and, of course, their gymnasium fees are going to cost more. These are examples of the direct impact on them of the Prime Minister's GST.What about those other impacts? What about the impact on the sporting activities of their children? I have three young children. On Monday night, the girls both go to tap. On Friday evening, all three of them go to swimming training. On Saturday, young Jack plays soccer and the girls play netball. All these activities cost me a significant amount of money. If the Prime Minister gets his way and introduces his GST, it will cost me at least 10 per cent more. The Prime Minister's GST is also going to hit my son's soccer strip, the girls' netball uniforms, their tennis racquets and, of course, the girls' tap shoes.The organisations who run the sports in which my kids participate, of course, will be increasing their fees and registration costs, et cetera, to cover the increased cost of things like the soccer ball, the soccer net, the line marking powder, the netball hoops, the tennis nets, the court roller, the first aid kit, the referee's fees and, indeed, the referee's whistle, not to mention the cost of compliance, which will be a heavy burden on these sporting organisations, as the member for Cunningham has pointed out.I have done a rough calculation in terms of the activities of my children and I estimate that the additional cost to me each year will be around $600. I am lucky. I can afford the additional $600 but, unfortunately, many parents cannot. The choice for them will be to find the money elsewhere out of the family budget or go to young Joe and say, `Mate, I'm sorry, but in future you're going to have to decide whether you want to play soccer or play tennis because, quite frankly, we can't afford to send you to both.'It does cost me a significant amount of money to have my kids participating in sport to the extent that they do, but we encourage it. We encourage it because it is good for them. It is a vital part of their social and physical development. It helps them to grow confident. It will ensure that, as they grow up, they will be confident about participating in any form of sport in which they are asked to take part. You never know, it might be the start of the road to greatness, but not if their abilities are limited to those of their father.As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a possibility, and the sporting activities in which they are involved now might be the beginning of a trip to the Sydney Football Stadium, Homebush or, indeed, the Australian Institute of Sport. This is a vital part of our social structure. Children's participation in sport is very, very important. Governments, when considering policies such as the GST, aged care charges and cuts to child care, need to consider the other implications. I refer, for example, to the implications of child-care cuts on the ability of women to join the work force; and the implications of an aged care charge and how that might affect people's ability to access decent aged care.With respect to sport, there is a heavy social cost here. There could be no better response to some of our social problems—for example, our drug problems—than to get kids more involved in sport. That is not what the Prime Minister is doing here. What he is doing is putting in place a disincentive for kids to become involved in sport. I would have thought that is absolutely contrary to what we should be trying to achieve in this nation.When the voters go to the polls, probably in a couple of months time, they are going to have a very clear choice. They can re-elect the Prime Minister and his ineffective Nation al Party coalition partners and adopt a GST in this country or they can vote for the Australian Labor Party and ensure that their kids can continue to participate in sport at the level at which they currently do.I make the clear point that there is only one party to turn to if you do not want a GST—that is, the Australian Labor Party. Don't worry about One Nation's protestations about the GST. If you turn to page 52 of John Pasquarelli's book on the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), you will see a very interesting paragraph which refers to the member for Oxley's attitude towards the GST. Mr Pasquarelli says this:We did have our differences on the goods and services tax, she saying it would be a good thing, but my position being that small business would only end up being the unpaid tax collector.I find myself agreeing with Mr Pasquarelli. We have on record the member for Oxley's attitude to a GST and I think it is incumbent upon us to remind people of that attitude. It is all right now, in the face of a coming election, for her to take the popular line and say that she opposes a GST. The message to Australian electors is this: if you do not want a GST after the next election, if you do not want these heavy burdens placed upon your kids' sport and all of those other activities of life, you should vote for the Australian Labor Party and not consider anyone else.15:48:005308Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—It is a pleasure to speak against this so-called matter of public importance. I say `so-called' because what really is of public importance is for the people of Australia to understand how the current taxation system is unfair, outdated and against ordinary people. The member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) might hang around so that he can learn something about the current taxation system which he obviously forgot.The opposition today are doing exactly what everyone, including former colleagues of those opposite, expected them to do—that is, run a scare campaign on a GST. They do not have the intellectual ability to debate overall taxation reform. It is simply a matter of `whatever it takes', as Richardson said. And here they are again today, scaring the general public, trying to make out that everyone will have to stop being involved in sport if a broad based consumption tax was introduced. As usual, they talk about such a tax in isolation. They never talk about it in the context of overall taxation reform and never, ever in the context of the current taxation system.The Labor Party claim they have the average family in their minds when they run this line about the effect of a broad based consumption tax on sport involvement. It would not be fair to speculate about what might be the case and the end result of overall taxation reform on sport without looking at the current system.To do that, let us look at sport on an average Saturday in Australia. Take the family heading off with the kids for Saturday sport. They jump in the car. What is on the car? Twenty-two per cent. All the accessories, everything to do with cars—22 per cent. They go via the petrol station and fill up—36c or 37c fuel excise there. There is tax all the way. Maybe the kids do not go with mum and dad in the car. They might jump on their bikes and ride down to the local sporting ground. What tax is on bicycles now? Twenty-two per cent. Surprise, surprise!What about the sporting equipment that they have to use? It was an absolute disgrace for the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) to start talking about a consumption tax of some sort going on top of things like tennis racquets. It does not matter whether it is a tennis racquet, footballs, cricket gear, you name it; currently, under the Labor Party taxation system, every single one of those items has 22 per cent sales tax on it.I think it is an absolute disgrace that a member of parliament can scare people by saying, `You're going to be paying an additional 10 per cent, possibly, on top of the current price,' when the item—the tennis racquet, the cricket gear, the pads, you name it—has already got 22 per cent tax on it. In any sort of taxation reform, those sorts of taxes, the wholesale sales tax, the unfair tax, is taken off. When you pick up a cricket ball, the Labor Party is making out there is zero tax there. It is not zero, it is not five per cent, it is not 10 per cent, it is not 15 per cent, it is not 20 per cent; it is 22 per cent. Even when you put all of that cricket gear or football gear into a bag of some sort, what is the tax on luggage at the moment? Twenty-two per cent. Every single thing you come to has 22 per cent tax on it.Let us remember that, prior to 1993, the tax on all those items was 20 per cent. The Labor Party campaigned at that time against taxation reform. Remember the big scare campaign, the one they are trotting out again now? What did they do after they snuck back into government? They increased the sales tax. So all the 20 per cent goods at the time went to 22 per cent. They whacked up the tax on all those sporting goods by two per cent, from 20 per cent to 22 per cent.One could ask where the members for Cunningham and Hunter were at that time. They whinge and carry on about the cost to their kids for the sporting equipment, but where were they when the tax went from 20 per cent to 22 per cent? What were they saying to their boss? I know that the member for Cunningham was sitting in the Speaker's chair taking orders from Mr Keating. They had no concern at all at the time.Back to Saturday sport. We are down at the football. The member for Cunningham will probably remember that, before playing football, it was common to pile on the petroleum jelly around the legs and the ears. That helps the grazes and stops people being able to easily tackle you. What about that petroleum jelly that you plaster all over your legs, ears and various things? Guess what? There is a 22 per cent tax.HK6LINDSAYMr Lindsay—On jelly?OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—That is right. Now the kids are out on the field and someone gets hurt. One of the parents races over. You have seen the scene, bucket in the hand with all sorts of things in the bucket. The bucket has a 12 per cent sales tax currently. The kid has lost some skin off the knee, so to fix up the knee the parent uses a bit of antiseptic. Antiseptic currently has a 22 per cent sales tax. It has to be put on with something, a bit of cotton wool, a cotton bud or that sort of thing. Is there any tax on cotton wool? Yes, 22 per cent.Maybe the kid got hurt a bit more and had to be taken off the field. Let us take them off the field into the clubhouse and lie them down on a mattress. The mattress has a 12 per cent sales tax. Better put a pillow under their head—12 per cent sales tax. A travel rug will keep them warm while they get over the knock—12 per cent sales tax. I could go on.Now for the spectators, the mums and dads out there. Mum and dad have got binoculars so they can watch the game a bit closer. A sales tax on binoculars? You guessed it: 32 per cent. They also want to video some of the game so they can show their son later how well he played. The video recorder, 32 per cent. The videotape inside the video recorder, 22 per cent. If they have only got a camera, bad luck, there is a 32 per cent tax on that as well as on all the accessories. There is a 22 per cent tax on the film and all the processing that goes with it. If they want to have some prints of the game, once again, it is a 22 per cent tax on the printing.At half time, the spectators need some refreshments. After all the yelling and that, they need a drink. Fruit juice, 12 per cent. They want a snack, some popcorn or chips. The member for Cunningham mentioned chips before and how much more they are going to cost. What is the sales tax on chips, muesli bars and snack foods? It is 12 per cent. That includes chocolates, lollies and nuts. If the spectators are yelling a bit much, like I might be now, they need something to soothe the throat. Throat lozenges, 12 per cent. If they have a soft drink rather than a fruit juice, 22 per cent. If they venture over for a beer, is there a sales tax on that? Yes, 22 per cent. Even if they have a mineral water—if they are being good and healthy—whether it is sparkling or not, the tax is 22 per cent.The players come off the field and into the showers. Let us leave aside the toilets, showers and all those sorts of things in the clubhouse. They all have a 12 per cent sales tax on them. The players need toilet paper, soap and all of those sorts of things to get clean after the game. All 22 per cent. The mums and dads are often left to clean up after. They have to get some disinfectant, laundry power and all those sorts of things to wash the football jerseys. Any tax on that? Yes, 22 per cent. There is even a tax for those mums and dads who ran a sausage sizzle at the game because they have to wash up after. Washing up liquid, 22 per cent.The tax applies even if you want to have a sport at home. Maybe you have saved your money and put in an above-ground pool so you can do a bit of swimming at home to keep fit. Tax: 22 per cent. What about gym gear, weights and those sorts of things? Tax: 22 per cent. The mums and dads involved in sporting groups also have to send out minutes and those sorts of things. Stationery, writing pads, envelopes, pencils and all the things you need to do that have a 22 per cent tax. That is the existing tax. We could go on forever pointing out what is actually paid.The Labor Party are absolutely hypocritical on this. They had the sports rorts affair which saw the destruction of sporting facilities in this country. Every single person involved in that should be absolutely ashamed of what they did in that process with the sports rorts affairs.The overall taxation reform means a fairer system for Australians, particularly those ordinary Australians who are middle and low income earners. They are the ones who are paying far too much in the current system. They are the people who will benefit from taxation reform. They will pay less income tax. They will choose what tax they pay. Taxation reform is long overdue. If we are going to get jobs right around this country and if we are going to have a country with a better standard of living, including being able to participate in sporting events more and more, we must have a fairer system and we must have it now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Personal Explanations531015:58:005310Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Grievously so.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—I was misrepresented by the member for Wentworth (Mr Andrew Thomson), who, in his presentation on the MPI, claimed that I support a broadening of the indirect tax base in Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would refer the member for Wentworth to page 132 of my book Civilising Global Capital , where I give every possible reason why a GST and any other broadening of the indirect tax base in Australia should be rejected.Bills5311r5505311Debate resumed.15:59:005311Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The government's decision to extend repatriation health gold cards to an additional 50,000 World War II veterans is important and significant. It is a big win for veterans organisations and in particular for the Returned Services League, which has been lobbying for many years for this extension to become a reality. The RSL's national president, Major General Peter Phillips, said that the Howard government's decision to extend the gold card benefits was:. . . certainly the most significant achievement for the RSL, and indeed the whole veteran community, in many years.In my electorate of Herbert, Townsville RSL president, Mr Col Titmarsh, and one of the RSL's welfare officers and advocates, Mr David Turnbull, have also warmly welcomed this decision. Mr Turnbull said that the decision would ensure that our World War II veterans could get access to a wide range of health care benefits at a time in their lives when perhaps it was needed the most.I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Phillips, Col Titmarsh and David Turnbull. This has been a significant win for the veteran community in Townsville and throughout the North Queensland region. About 280 World War II veterans throughout Townsville and Thuringowa will directly benefit from this decision. The gold card provides veterans with a range of health services, including private patient hospital care and choice of doctor. Eligible veterans will also get access to a range of other specialist treatment, including psychiatric care, optical care, physiotherapy, dental care, podiatry and chiropractic care.These services will apply regardless of whether a veteran's medical condition or complaint is war related or not. Furthermore, the extension of the gold card benefits to eligible veterans will be neither income nor assets tested. The decision to extend gold card benefits was one of a number of positive budget initiatives aimed towards older Australians, including veterans. Over recent months there has been a range of positive decisions for older Australians. Certainly in Townsville these changes have been noted and welcomed.The day after the 1998-99 budget was delivered, the Townsville Bulletin reported that the budget had received a thumbs up from the Townsville region's committee on the ageing. Its president, Mr Garth Harrigan, said of the budget:I think from the older people's point of view, and particularly from self-funded retirees, it was quite good. We now have a better chance of getting rebates for our medical. That's gone up to $67,000 for married couples and $40,000 for singles and takes into account a lot of people on a superannuation pension who are just above the pension cut-off point.The article went on:Mr Harrigan applauded the introduction of the gold card for World War II veterans. `We owe them our freedom and they should have whatever we can give them,' he said. He welcomed the flu vaccination for over 65s and the indexation of pensions to the male average weekly wage.I know Garth Harrigan as a strong, passionate and hardworking spokesperson for older Australians. I welcome his comments in relation to the recent federal budget and in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 .His comments and the comments of other people such as the RSL's national president on the extension of the gold card stand in stark contrast to the following quote about the budget and older Australians:There's nothing for pensioners except a shot in the arm for a flu injection.That quote came from the former Labor member for Herbert, who will be recontesting the seat at the next election. Needless to say, I am disappointed by this quote for two reasons. Firstly, it ignores the significance of the government's decision to extend gold card benefits to all World War II veterans aged 70 and over and who saw active duty overseas and in Far North Australia. Incidentally, my home town of Townsville was one of the 11 cities bombed in the last war. Secondly, it dismisses as trivial this government's decision to give free flu vaccinations to older Australians. This decision was not about bucket loads of money but based purely and simply on protecting the health of older Australians. For many older Australians, influenza can be a life-threatening illness. While the cost of an individual flu shot is only relatively small, it in no way diminishes the value of this program. The benefits of a program should not always be measured in dollars and cents.People who criticise the decision to make flu shots freely available to people aged 65 years and over because it only saves them $3.50 a year, and people who knock the government's health rebates decision because it does not help them because they are not sick at the moment, are missing the point completely. There may be some World War II veterans who receive the gold card from 1 January 1999 but find they rarely get a direct benefit from it because they are in good health, but that does not diminish in any way the importance of our decision to extend to them the card. A person may be in good health now, but two months or two years down the track who knows. I certainly found that out for myself late last year when, without warning, I was hospitalised.The government's initiative of the gold card has been very warmly received by our veteran community and I support this initiative 100 per cent. However, I take this opportunity to restate my desire to see the gold card extended, sooner rather than later, to the veterans of the Korean and Malayan conflicts. According to the best information I can get from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, there appear to be between about 12,000 and 14,000 surviving veterans from the Korean-Malayan conflicts. There is currently a study going on which may show these numbers to be slightly different.Some of those personnel would have served in World War II; others would have served in Korea and Malaya and gone on to serve in Vietnam. Korea has often been regarded by history as something of a forgotten war, but it is not forgotten by those veterans who were a part of it. As each year passes, there are inevitably fewer and fewer veterans from the Korean and Malayan conflicts. In just two years time we will be marking the 50th anniversary of the Korean conflict. Perhaps extending the gold card repatriation health benefits to our veterans of that campaign would be a fitting way of marking that anniversary. I applaud the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) for his leadership and determination in driving the changes the government has made in relation to the gold card, and I fully support this bill.16:06:005312Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 . In my local Miranda RSL sub-branch journal, the welfare officer, Ed Knight, entitled his column `Card good as gold' when he reported my announcement to them about this government's initiative. This initiative has been very well received by the veteran community, and it is about time. It demonstrates the commitment that the Howard administration has to our older Australians, particularly our veterans, and to those who have put their life on the line for the service of our country.These men endured the torrid conditions that World War II veterans experienced in pursuit of our country's freedom, and the veterans who qualify for this gold card experienced the constant threat of death, the constant threat of not coming home to their wives and children, the constant threat of suffering injuries that might incapacitate them for the rest of their lives. This legislation recognises the tremendous sacrifice that our heroes made risking their lives to ensure freedom for generations to come.It has been estimated that 50,000 Australians will benefit from this new government initiative. I am pleased say that some 439 veterans in my own electorate of Cook will benefit from this initiative. This is good news for our community, which has benefited more than most electorates, and represents considerable comfort for this special part of our older community in Cook. Along with the staying at home package recently announced, older Australians can feel secure that this government will look after them.The major qualifying test for this entitlement is that the veteran has incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy. Most World War II veterans have this qualifying service as a result of their service outside Australia during the period of hostilities from 3 September 1939 to 29 October 1945. Certain service within Australia while in danger from hostile forces of the enemy is also classified as qualifying service.Those who meet the test need to be 70 years old. Even if you enlisted in, say, 1945, 53 years ago, you are going to be eligible for these benefits, unless you enlisted at a very young age—that is, at 16 or younger. Thus virtually all who meet the requirements will be eligible. Indeed, the average age of eligible veterans is 76.5 years of age.There are some particular benefits that this scheme provides that I would like to mention. First, eligible veterans will be able to access free comprehensive private health cover. This is first-class treatment from 1 January 1999. Those who have private health insurance may choose to relinquish this at a saving of perhaps thousands per year. This is money that these people did not have before the introduction of this legislation. This top of the range health cover includes choice of doctor, pharmaceuticals at a concessional rate, optical care, physiotherapy, dental care, podiatry and chiropractic services. These services cost a lot of money for veterans, and the significance of this benefit to eligible veterans cannot be underestimated. The generosity of this package is very satisfying and most appropriate.The gold card even entitles eligible veterans to transport to and from their treatment for all conditions. Indeed, my uncle, Alf Crameri, who already qualified, was a veteran of World War II and served on Lancasters over Europe. He used to regularly come by necessity to Gosford to visit his doctor in Macquarie Street. As a member of state parliament then, I would always take him, and his friend who served with him, to lunch after his appointment. I must say that I thought it was wonderful to be able to take those gentlemen to lunch. I think it is one of the small things we can do to show our appreciation for what they did for us during that terrible time. This transport entitlement is very important. I understand that very much from the experience of my uncle. The transport entitlement is well received.I would like to mention the fact that all World War II ex-servicewomen are already provided for with full medical treatment entitlements. The reason for this is that a government inquiry found some serious disadvantages suffered by women during World War II. This inquiry found that women were paid less than men throughout the war and that they had not been eligible for the same level of repatriation assistance after the war. This move sought to compensate World War II women for those discrepancies.So as to provide an efficient service and answer any queries about the new entitlements, the government has set up a gold card hotline whereby interested parties may obtain information as to their entitlements. What is significant about this scheme is that it recognises all those veterans with qualifying service, regardless of income or assets. It also covers treatment for health conditions which are unrelated to the war.To all those brave men and women who will benefit from this proposal, it is a fitting reward for your service to this great nation and for your service to ensuring that this great nation remains free. It is our freedom that you protected, and this bill says thank you.16:12:005313Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I am absolutely delighted to stand up and support the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 because of the very great benefits that it provides to so many Australians who have risked their lives to serve this wonderful country of ours. I would also at the outset like to congratulate the veterans community in my electorate of Cowper for the incredibly strong support that I and other members of this House receive from them in seeking to have the government provide this benefit of extending the gold card.I notice that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) has just come into the chamber. I want to pay tribute to him and thank him for what he and the government have done for our veterans. I always try to be absolutely fair dinkum, so I also pay tribute to a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Con Sciacca, who was minister in the previous Labor government. He did a marvellous job, but I can tell everybody in Australia that the present minister, Bruce Scott, is also doing a wonderful job. He is an absolutely caring and compassionate minister and the veterans' affairs community is very fortunate indeed to have a man of the calibre and quality of Bruce Scott looking after their interests, and of course that is what the Howard-Fischer government is doing. We are looking after the interests of the veterans of Australia because we know, we acknowledge and we appreciate that the veterans of Australia have provided enormous service to this country.I can speak very personally—I will not speak of very many—of my late father, who commanded an anti-tank battery, the 2nd/3rd Anti-tank Unit. He went right through Tobruk, the Battle of El Alamein and New Guinea. He gave tremendous service to this country. I must say in passing that I was very lucky I did not end up a legatee like so many other youngsters, because he came back. I appreciate the work that Legacy is doing as well, because they are doing a tremendous job.The RSL veterans community I think needs the praise of this parliament and an acknowledgment of the tremendous job that they are doing. I work very closely with the veterans community in the electorate of Cowper. They are a tremendous group of men and women who are looking after the RSL and the interests of veterans.I speak about people like David Doyle who is the President of the Coffs Harbour RSL sub-branch; Frank Ellis, Secretary of the Kempsey-Macleay sub-branch; Bert Huxley from Urunga; John Martin, Sawtell RSL sub-branch and the Naval Association; Jack Needs from South West Rocks; Bob Provost, a marvellous man from Nambucca Heads; Neville Spear from Taylor's Arm; Bob Denner from Dorrigo; Brian Duncan at Stuarts Point; Bill Fuller at Macksville and Roger Jones of Bowraville. The list goes on and on of these people who, during conflicts in which Australia was represented and at risk, not only risked their lives but also now, later, continue to serve the community in looking after their fellow ex-servicemen.I mention also Alf Martin from the Bellinger River RSL sub-branch; Geoff Plummer from Woolgoolga; Tom Simon from the Lower Macleay; Pat Gillespie, who is also the President of the Sawtell RSL Club and does a wonderful job; Russell Pinkerton from Nambucca Heads, and somebody I have to mention with a great deal of affection, Peter Millett, commonly known as `Blue', who was a warrant officer in the regular army for many years, served in Vietnam with distinction and is now doing a great deal to help the veterans community.Another individual I would like to mention when we are thinking about service provided for Australia is my late godfather, Archibald Clyde Menzies Ewart, who was, if my memory serves me correctly, in the 30th Battalion. He was certainly captured at Singapore. He was in Changi prison and worked on the Burma railway. I think I have probably said in this place before that I can still remember when he and so many other prisoners of war came back to Sydney, got off the ships and were taken to the Sydney Showground in double-decker buses. They stepped off the buses emaciated and very well worn indeed, but they survived and they showed great strength.I am indeed fortunate that, while he was on the Burma railway, my godfather had access to a little wood lathe. He made a small chess set out of timber which I have, with great pride, sitting in my office in Coffs Harbour. It is actually in a little cloth bag with a drawstring, and it is stained with oil and sweat. It has little holes appearing in it from old age. That little cloth bag was the peanut bag of Colonel Varley—later Brigadier Varley—on the Burma railway. While these things are very personal for me, I think that every Australian can empathise with those men and women who served this country, who risked their lives—and, of course, some of whom died.Those who came back deserve the grateful thanks of the Australian nation. What we are providing in terms of assistance is not welfare at all; this is compensation. As a nation we said to our men and women—the young men and women of Australia, the cream of Australian youth who went to risk their lives—that we would look after them. We also said we would look after their widows and their children if they did not come back, and that is a sacred responsibility of the national parliament of Australia. Again, I pay credit to the minister sitting at the table, the Hon. Bruce Scott, for the way he is administering his department.The gold card is being extended to World War II ex-service men and women over the age of 70 who served in hostile circumstances and risked danger. I am very pleased that this has gone out. We all know about the Bills Digest but for people in the rest of Australia I might say that it is a service that provides information to members and summarises what is in a legislative bill. 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.I think that is fantastic, and I am very, very grateful on behalf of the 550-odd constituents in the electorate of Cowper who will now receive a gold card on 1 January 1999 who were not entitled to get it before. While I am sure the measure has been received very warmly throughout Australia—and I am absolutely sure about Cowper—most of the veterans community who may not receive it are still delighted that their comrades-in-arms will receive this benefit.I say to the minister that we might have another look at what appear to be perhaps one or two anomalies. I have had calls from quite a number of ex-service men and women from World War II who do not qualify for the gold card. One of them was an Australian citizen who happened to be in England at the start of World War II. Being a very loyal Australian he did what he thought was the right thing: he signed up and joined the British Army as an Australian citizen to fight for the democracy that we all hold so dear. I think perhaps that is one anomaly that could be looked at to see whether the gold card might be extended.I have also had a number of calls from Australian citizens of British birth who served in the armed services of the United Kingdom during World War II. I know that it is the responsibility of those individual countries to provide for their own and, of course, I am sure that within Australia there are ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen from France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Poland, the United States and Canada who risked their lives during World War II on the side of the Allies. I suppose the initial response is: we as a small nation cannot really afford to take up the financial burden of providing these special services for those people who, even though they are now Australians, actually served in the forces of other countries.While we have to do the right thing by everybody, I would like to ask the minister if perhaps it is possible to have some assessment made of how many people there are in this situation—people from Allied countries who risked their lives during World War II fighting for democracy, fighting for what we were fighting for. I wonder just how much would it cost if we were to be able to extend that benefit to them. I know, as we all do, that you just cannot go spending money endlessly, but I have a more than soft spot in my heart for anyone who risked their lives in that situation to fight Hitler and Japan at that time. I do not know whether it is possible, but perhaps we can at least assess the numbers and see what the bill would be.I have also been having calls from constituents who would really like to have the gold card, for obvious reasons. I had a talk only a few days ago with one of my constituents who served in the Royal Navy. He has been an Australian citizen for many years, but he served in the British Navy on ships going through to Russia. They were the deadliest of voyages, particularly in winter. Unbelievable! I can still recall as a child during World War II seeing some of the photographs of the ice-encrusted ships on the journey to Murmansk. This particular gentleman's wife served in the Australian forces at Townsville. He rang and he was really concerned. They are in their 80s. He said, `I don't want it for me, but I think my wife who served Australia in time of war in Townsville should get it.' I think we should look at the other side of it.I had a page out of a book faxed to me today showing a map of Australia and the points right around the coast where Australia was attacked by Japanese forces during World War II. Quite frankly, I was absolutely amazed that there were so many attacks. I was a child living in Newcastle while my father was in Tobruk. I can remember hearing the shells explode when the Japanese submarine came into Newcastle harbour and shelled the powerhouse and Customs House. I can remember it very clearly, very vividly. The people in that area of Newcastle were in danger, whether they were civilians or in the armed services. If you have shells going off around you, I think that is a fairly dangerous situation. Again, I was really quite surprised to see this map, which showed all of the attacks on Australia. If anybody in the House would like a copy, I will give you one; please let me know.Of course, we as a nation, as a parliament, must never forget. I know every Anzac Day, and at other times too, we recite the oath. We always say, `We will remember them. Lest we forget.' That is the keynote of the way all Australians feel about our veteran community. I think that we should be very thankful to those men and women who did so much and risked their lives so completely.I did not realise I had brought in the map of the Japanese submarine attacks off the Australian coast. While it obviously cannot go into Hansard, I hold it up for members in the chamber to see. You can see the number of attacks. Even off Coffs Harbour, where I live, there were ships sunk. It just brings home that World War II had a major impact not only on those who went but also on those who stayed behind.Another point I would like to make is that, while the previous Labor government very properly extended the gold card to World War I veterans 55 years after the end of the war, and now the Howard-Fischer government is extending it to World War II veterans, we should not forget those who served in Korea or Malaya and, in the fullness of time, our Vietnam veterans as well. They in particular, when the appropriate time comes, should have this benefit extended to them as well. Any Australian who served in our armed services fighting for Australia, fighting for the future of our children and our grandchildren, should get consideration—not as youngsters perhaps, unless their health absolutely demands it. But the extension of the gold card to World War II veterans over 70 years of age, as happened with World War I veterans, should be regarded as setting the pattern at the appropriate time for veterans from the Korean, Malayan and Vietnam conflicts to also receive this consideration. They also served Australia at the risk of their lives, and we are equally as grateful to them as we are to those veterans of World War I and World War II.I always remember the question at the Versailles peace conference after World War I where Australia was represented by our then Prime Minister, Billy Hughes. We were seeking the right to manage the former German colony of New Guinea which we had—to use the modern word—`liberated'. We were being opposed in this object by quite a few countries, in particular the United States of America. President Woodrow Wilson of the United States stood up and looked down his long nose, which was pretty darned long indeed, and said, `By what right does the little country of Australia demand anything?' Billy Hughes leapt to his feet—which did not take him very far; he was a very short man—and said, `Mr President, by the right of 60,000 dead, which is more than you lost.' Most Australians do not know that we lost more of the cream of our young men in World War I than the mighty United States of America. We should know that and we should be proud of that. Above all, we should be proud of those young men.The other thing I think we should be proud about is that when World War I started the total population of Australia was four million men, women and children—a total population of four million. And 400,000 of our young men volunteered—10 per cent of the total population. Most Australians do not know that, but they should. They should be proud of it, and they should be proud of the service given by those young men, 60,000 of whom did not come home.In conclusion, I just want to say again how pleased I am to be a member of the Howard-Fischer government, which is honouring its obligations and the obligations of the nation to our veterans. I again congratulate the Hon. Bruce Scott, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, for doing a fantastic job for the veterans community of Australia.16:32:005317Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—in reply—In summing up the debate on this landmark piece of legislation, the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 , I thank all those members from both sides of the House who have contributed to this bill. I also thank them for the bipartisan manner in which they have supported this bill. I certainly thank them for this approach. I think it has been a feature of the veterans portfolio for a very long time that both sides of the parliament of Australia do all that they can to give our veterans the best possible entitlement that this nation can provide.I would also like to thank the shadow minister, the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), for his comments. I note that he has moved no amendments, and I thank him for that. That will also ensure the speedy passage of this bill and deliver the much needed health care to our World War II veterans.I also noted in many of the members' speeches that they are out there selling this initiative. It did not matter from which side of the House; they are out there. It may be this government's initiative but members from both sides of the parliament are out there selling it. I have actually seen articles in the members' newsletters to their constituents, and I thank them for that.This bill will extend full repatriation health care benefits via a gold card to Australian veterans and also to Australian mariners—I think that is a point that often does not get picked up; it does extend to Australian mariners—who are 70 or over and who have World War II qualifying service. The gold card will be available to an estimated 50,000 eligible veterans from 1 January next year. It is a landmark event for veterans, and it is the most significant extension of benefits to this group of World War II veterans for many years.The extension of the gold card fulfils a key coalition promise and delivers on the highest priority item of the veteran community. I also want to thank the veteran community, because they do a tremendous job in their own communities supporting their veterans, the widows and the dependants of veterans. My office, my department and many members of the parliament also have worked with them to achieve this outcome. It was their high priority, and of course it is a major initiative. It does cost over $500 million over four years, so it is significant in terms of budget cost. I want to thank the veteran community for the manner in which they have worked with the government to see their highest priority, one of our election commitments, fulfilled and coming to reality.The timing of the extension of the gold card closely reflects the 1973 provisions of full repatriation health care benefits to World War I veterans—which many members of the parliament spoke of—which was 55 years after the end of hostilities in 1918. This extension to World War II veterans occurs 54 years after the end of World War II.The World War II veterans with qualifying service are those who served in the Australian defence forces between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945 and incurred danger from hostile forces of the enemy. These dates are acknowledged as the start and end points of the period of hostilities for World War II. The veterans who served during those years endured the deprivations and the horror of combat so that we can enjoy freedom and democracy in this great land of which we are all so proud.I want to assure members of the parliament that those veterans out there who are not sure if they do have qualifying service for the gold card will be encouraged to apply to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Alternatively, veterans can ring the department or seek further information from the department's web site on the Internet.The Deputy Speaker of the parliament, the member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), raised in his speech the case of an individual member of his electorate, an Australian who joined with an Allied force in the United Kingdom. I understand that he had been domiciled in Australia and is an Australian citizen. I would certainly urge him to apply, because my understanding is that, whilst they may not have served in Australian forces, if they had been domiciled in Australia and then served with an Allied force they may be eligible. I do urge those people to apply, because they served with an Allied force. A special section has been established in state department offices to deal with those cases. If the member for Cowper or any member of the parliament has people in their electorate who feel that they do not qualify yet served with an Allied force and who were domiciled in Australia, I urge you to urge them to apply for the gold card.Australian World War II veterans with qualifying service are now an average age of 76 years and their health needs are significant. The gold card will provide them with a sense of security that comes from knowing that their health needs will continue to be met regardless of their level of income or assets and irrespective of whether they have war-caused disabilities or conditions. This initiative is an important way of expressing our deep gratitude to Australian veterans for their courage, their dedication and the sacrifice they were prepared to make on our behalf.The extension of the gold card health benefits to those 50,000 veterans will mean a net additional cost to the Commonwealth of $508 million over four years. This is a new initiative and has not been funded at the expense of existing veteran entitlements. Already some 260,000 veterans and war widows hold the gold card, including 135,000 World War II veterans.The government gratefully acknowledges the service provided by an estimated 93,000 World War II veterans who served within Australia who do not have that essential qualifying service. However, these Australian veterans who do not have qualifying service from World War II can still be granted a gold card in circumstances where their individual level of war-caused disability is such that the issue of a gold card is warranted. It does not prevent them from applying for a gold card. A white card may also be issued to these veterans to provide medical treatment for specific war-caused disability.The government is also aware that there are many deserving groups of people who are also seeking access to the gold card, such as veterans from the Korean and Vietnam wars. Already there are 8,000 Korean and Malayan veterans and 12,000 Vietnam veterans who have been granted the gold card as a result of their individual level of war-caused disability or their financial situation. In terms of the extension of this card, there sometimes could be a perception in the veteran community that an extension such as this for a Second World War veteran with qualifying service is the only way a gold card can be issued by automatic extension. I think those figures speak for themselves. There are veterans of other conflicts who do hold a gold card and, in fact, those who only had service within Australia may also be eligible, based on the level of disability. That process still remains in place.I am also aware that there are many British and Allied veterans who are disappointed that they are not covered by this extension of the gold card. The general principle agreed with other governments is that each country is responsible for war compensation for veterans of its own forces, irrespective of where they later choose to live, and this includes health benefits. That has been an agreement of long standing between countries.The Australian repatriation system has only ever provided health benefits for veterans who served in the Australian forces. British and Allied veterans do not currently qualify for disability pensions or medical treatment benefits from my department, although we do actively facilitate their access to British pensions and treatment benefits. There is a small exception for those veterans of other Allied forces who were domiciled in Australia before enlistment, on the basis that these veterans had a connection with Australia before their service. If any British, Commonwealth or Allied veteran of World War II feels that they meet this exception, they should certainly apply for the gold card.Some British and Commonwealth veterans receive from my department a white card for treatment of specific disabilities as part of an agency arrangement. My department pays the treatment costs for these veterans and seeks reimbursement from the other governments in order to make the benefits easier to access for the veteran.The Australian government has recognised the contribution of British, Commonwealth and Allied veterans in wartime and subsequently in Australia through their eligibility for the service pension, which is the veterans equivalent of the age and disability support pensions. To reiterate, the government recognises that there are many deserving groups seeking access to the gold card. However, we consider that this group of Australian veterans with World War II qualifying service are the highest priority at this time.In conclusion, I say to all members of the House that 1 January next year is the implementation date for this gold card. This is one of the biggest recruitment drives that we have had since the Second World War. We want to find those 50,000 veterans wherever they are in Australia. As I keep telling people—and I will tell those veterans when we find them—we are not going to give them a uniform this time, we are going to give them a gold card. I commend the bill to the House, and I thank the shadow minister for his bipartisan support.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.5319Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott) read a third time.Bills5319r5415319Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.16:46:005319Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In Budget Paper No. 1, at page 2-5, some measurements of household savings ratios are given. Household savings ratios are outlined as a percentage of GDP. The most alarming statistics can be found there. They indicate that, for 1996-97, the household savings ratio was 4.7 per cent, the estimate for 1997-98 was 3¼ per cent, and the estimate for 1998-99 is 2¾ per cent. So household savings as a percentage of GDP are falling, not rising. With public debt at the second lowest level in the industrialised world, just as it was when Labor left office, Australia does not have a public savings problem, but we do have and have had for some time a private savings problem. That private savings problem lies at the heart of our foreign debt worries and our structural problems with the current account deficit and so on.Household savings are falling, and yet the government has been making irresponsible decisions concerning superannuation, ringbarking Labor's superannuation tree, and jeopardising our future retirement incomes and wealth and prosperity in the process. In my view, perhaps the single most irresponsible decision this government made was its abandonment of Labor's superannuation co- contribution scheme, which would have meant a combination of employer, employee and government contributions, growing eventually from the planned nine per cent that we have in place and in prospect now to 15 per cent—enough on Vince Fitzgerald's calculations to ensure that future generations of wage and salary earners would be able to retire on an income of around 70 per cent of pre-retirement levels. This not only would have given us a world's best solution to that universal problem of providing a decent retirement income for an ageing population but also would have translated over the period to 2020 into an addition to the national savings pool in the order of $400 billion.Instead of that, we got the ill thought out, valueless, half-baked introduction of the government's saving rebate, at less than half the cost of the co-contribution scheme but still involving over $2 billion a year in government expenditure. That rebate rewards those with existing savings, even if they are run down during the course of the year. The government rebate is as likely to be spent as to be saved, so the overall impact of that rebate on total national savings is bound to end up negative. It takes some genius to devise a scheme which produces this result and at the same time is supposed to contribute to the development of a private savings culture in this country by providing a benefit you can get by not adding to your savings at all. Then the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) said that he was not going to accept the savings rebate, thus creating an Alice in Wonderland situation where apparently it was morally wrong for anyone who had a high enough income to actually get the rebate to then claim it.Labor strongly favours superannuation as our preferred savings vehicle. No other area of savings policy can be harnessed to that great macro-economic task facing the nation of increasing national savings in the way which superannuation can. The point needs to be constantly made that superannuation remains a good investment for working people. Household savings have sunk to an historic low. Recently, ASFA put out a fact sheet and, accompanying that, a blueprint for a national retirement income policy in which ASFA set out a number of concerns which it has about the situation in which we find ourselves concerning superannuation. ASFA said:Most Australians anticipate that their retirement savings will leave them with 60 per cent of their previous earnings, but ASFA's calculations show that, with the nine per cent phased superannuation guarantee contributions and individual contributions at three per cent, the end superannuation benefit after 35 years would be about 45 per cent of a person's average weekly earnings and 50 per cent after 40 years of savings.It says that contributions not of nine per cent but of 15 per cent of an individual's salary throughout that person's career would be required to reach the 60 per cent target and that higher contributions are needed if the individual works for less than 40 years.ASFA's figures show that the only ways to achieve an adequate pool of savings for retirement are through a substantial increase in the contribution of individual workers, an increase in the federal government's nine per cent superannuation guarantee, a reduction in superannuation taxes and/or a better interface with social security to encourage voluntary savings. ASFA makes these important points in its blueprint for a national retirement income policy.When ASFA talk about compulsory superannuation—the superannuation guarantee—they say:Personal and employer contributions with a total in excess of 9 per cent of earnings and/or less onerous tax treatment of super are required to meet the income target.Their retirement incomes blueprint is based on some quite interesting research in this area. They say that projections using the AMP model of retirement income suggest that superannuation guarantee contributions of nine per cent, which is the main compulsory element of the current government policies, would result in a replacement rate of 28 per cent after 30 years and a 43 per cent replacement rate after 40 years. So for a person on about average weekly earnings, this implies a total replacement rate of both superannuation and the age pension after 30 years of contributions of around 40 per cent. Their basic point is that that simply is not good enough. You need to have higher contributions in order to get the retirement outcomes that most of us would expect in retirement. They say:In terms of the level of employer contributions required to generate retirement incomes of the order of these targets, ASFA considers that nine per cent of earnings will not be sufficient in most cases, that additional employer or employee contributions and/or government contributions and/or more favourable tax treatment will be needed if community expectations about incomes in retirement are going to be met.That is the situation that confronts us as we look at this legislation concerning superannuation choice.Not only have the government failed Australians by abandoning the government's contribution and the employee co-contribution in relation to superannuation but they have also failed Australians by introducing the superannuation surcharge, which continues to be a major debacle. In the last day or two, I have been sent a copy of correspondence by Ernst and Young to the Assistant Commissioner (Superannuation) of the Australian Taxation Office, Mr John Ryan. They continue to be concerned about the issue of defined benefit funds and, in particular, the defined benefit funds on what are referred to as a contributions holiday, that is, where no contribution is actually being made to the superannuation fund on behalf of the employee for a given year.They have received correspondence from the tax office to say that the defined benefit funds on contribution holidays should be lodging superannuation surcharge information based on the tax office's interpretation of the surcharge legislation. The tax office sets out the possibility of liability to interest and penalties and so on if people fail to do this. Ernst and Young are convinced that the tax office's legal interpretation is wrong on this issue about whether defined benefit funds on a contributions holiday are liable to pay the surcharge. They have suggested:Given the significance of such a challenge to the Commissioner's interpretation and the legislative uncertainty of these provisions, we recommend that the Tax Office actually fund a test case in order to clarify the issue. This would be the most effective and cost-efficient manner in which to clarify the issue.So we have an ongoing nightmare in relation to the superannuation surcharge. There are many people who still have not been sent their surcharge accounts. When you get sent your surcharge account, you are put in the interesting position of deciding whether you will pay it now or allow it to accumulate at the long-term bond rate, which is a very interesting choice facing those put in this position. All one can say is that it is just as well the government stuck to its promise not to increase or introduce new taxes. That will certainly affect quite severely those who are liable to pay the surcharge. That is yet another way in which this government has failed Australia in relation to superannuation.The legislation before the House concerns the choice of superannuation funds. This has been an absolute shambles. Pre-election, the government announced this idea of choice. It was announced again in the 1997 budget. The proposals they put forward in the 1997 budget were changed when the legislation was introduced as the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) late last year. They included an unlimited choice of fund model after strong lobbying from employers. When the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) came before the House of Representatives in April this year, the government moved 80 amendments to that bill. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 became the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998, confusing a large section of the superannuation industry, which could not understand why choice had disappeared. They then announced in May this year a change to the start-up date, which was going to be 1 July this year. Most recently, they withdrew schedule 5 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 before the Senate even had the chance to debate this bill or consider the proposed amendments by the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Greens.In the legislative game of snakes and ladders, this bill got to the Senate, but it did not even get voted on. It hit the big snake, so it came down to No. 3, and we had to start again. As a result, we have had a considerable waste of resources. We have had the government using public resources and creating untold uncertainty in the superannuation industry, uncertainty amongst working Australians and uncertainty amongst employers. Frankly, the government's treatment of superannuation makes the nursing home debacle look like a model of sound public administration.Australia has a world-class retirement income system, notwithstanding the damage that this government has done to it. This was recognised by the World Bank in its 1994 report on retirement incomes policies. The rest of the world is looking at Australia as a world's best practice model.So why does the government want to change it? Basically, it is because the government wants to undermine industry funds. Government, with the ideological blinkers on, believes that unions benefit from superannuation at the expense of, for example, the government's banking friends who want a slice of the superannuation action. This view is frankly wrong. As no less a person than the former head of the MTIA, Mr Bert Evans, points out, industry superannuation funds are not union funds as the government wants us to believe and as the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was suggesting last night. They are jointly operated on behalf of members by trustees representing both employees and employers. Industry superannuation funds operate on a not-for-profit basis. They have returned market leading investment returns to members. They have the lowest fees and charges in the marketplace. They are there to look after the members and the members' interests. Compared with banks and vested interests who are trying to reap returns for their shareholders, the industry funds are only there to look after the members' superannuation for the benefit of the members.In our view, for the government to deliberately seek to undermine these funds is outrageous. People are sick of governments fiddling with superannuation policies. We in the opposition have learned that lesson; the government, however, has not. It has constantly changed superannuation since it came to office, to the detriment of confidence in the system. I was talking earlier about the surcharge tax debacle. We have had changes in terms of the retirement savings accounts, the RSAs. We have had the inclusion of superannuation in the means test for over-55s. This is a very unfortunate and unsatisfactory development which the Labor Party has promised to reverse on coming to office, because what it effectively means is that if you are over 55 and you do not find work during a nine-month period, that retires you for good. Including superannuation in the means test means that you are ineligible for social security support, so the only way you can feed yourself is to access that superannuation, and in order to access that superannuation you have to retire. That is a policy which is shabby in its impact on those concerned. It is also poor policy in terms of retirement incomes because it guarantees that a person's superannuation will be eaten up in the years after they are 55 instead of accruing interest, therefore they will be on the pension from age 65.We have seen the government endeavouring to abandon award superannuation and take away superannuation as an allowable award matter. As I was saying in the House yesterday, this will mean that workers on low incomes—below $450 a month in some cases, like hospitality workers and textiles, clothing and footwear employees—will literally lose superannuation payments; the 3 per cent and so on they had previously been entitled to under their awards. It will also mean that instead of having monthly payments or three-monthly payments from awards, you will only get the yearly payment from the superannuation guarantee. Workers will be worse off as a result because over the course of a working life that can amount to around $16,000, or a couple of years' worth of pension payments. That is a substantial problem so far as we are concerned and we are not supporting it.We have seen the government also endeavour to increase the threshold for opting out of superannuation from $450 a month to $900 a month. This is a move we also oppose as we think it will have a detrimental effect on workers with low incomes because they will have no access to superannuation in retire ment. We have also seen the government endeavouring to undermine the Public Sector Superannuation scheme, closing off the scheme that Commonwealth public servants can join, to the detriment of Commonwealth public servants.The government has undermined confidence in superannuation. Yesterday we were debating this bill which would remove superannuation from awards, undermining the conditions and superannuation entitlements of thousands of workers, particularly part-time and casual workers. The government did not win the argument on that debate and, similarly, it has not won the argument concerning choice of fund. They have barely entered the argument to convey just what it is they would have us do. They have claimed the choice of fund will drive down the costs of superannuation funds but all of the evidence suggests otherwise.A survey of 354 superannuation funds by Sedgwick Noble Lowndes reported that the government's choice of fund model would lead to increased costs for fund members. That survey stated that 87 per cent of funds believe that choice of fund will increase fund administration costs by some 10 per cent. Alarmingly, around 10 per cent of the funds surveyed believed that costs could increase by up to 50 per cent. That view was confirmed by witnesses to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation inquiry into choice of superannuation from Towers Perrin, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the C+Bus industry fund, who all argued that superannuation fund costs would increase dramatically after the introduction of choice, particularly in areas such as marketing, administration and legal costs.In addition, the government's choice of fund proposal is certain to disadvantage employers through increased administrative costs, which even the government acknowledges in its explanatory memorandum to the bill that introduces its choice model. This comes from the government which has been promising small business a 50 per cent reduction in red tape.The opposition remains convinced that the government's bill before us today will do nothing to improve the retirement incomes of working Australians. Instead, what the government's choice of fund model will do is to undermine retirement incomes. People are not going to make informed choices. They will be forced into products which are not appropriate for them. We intend, during the consideration in detail stage of this debate, to move a range of amendments which we believe will offer employees real choice of superannuation fund, not forced employer choice, which is what the government is offering.Labor's alternative choice of fund model provides for employee choice rather than the government's employer choice. It is a phased, two-stage approach. The first stage allows for member investment choice within funds. So, from 1 July 1999, we would be requiring those funds with more than 50 members to offer members a minimum choice of three investment options based on a low, medium and high risk return ratio or, if you like, capital backed, balanced growth options. This already happens in many industry and public offer funds and is referred to as member investment choice—that is to say, choice within existing funds.One of the concerns we have about the government's model is that, although it says that employers must offer four different choices, there is no guarantee that those choices will not, in practice, be identical. So we are concerned to ensure here that people would in fact get different options from which they could choose.The second stage of our model would provide for genuine employee choice. From 1 July 2000, we would allow employees to override award provisions which specify a superannuation fund, with the agreement of the employer. I will just set out the steps for the benefit of the House. The new fund nomination would be made in writing and be signed by the employee. Employers and employees who negotiate a certified agreement or an Australian workplace agreement would be taken to have exercised choice and would not be able to opt out of those agreements. Regulations would be drafted governing standard disclosure provisions applying to key feature statements offered by funds directly to employees, particularly to enable a simple comparison of fees, charges and fund earnings—and that is certainly an area of great concern to us.In the event of a dispute between employer and employee, the Industrial Relations Commission would act as the independent arbitrator. Where a workplace is not covered by an industrial award or agreement, the default fund would be that to which the majority of employees at that workplace belong. In the event of a new business which is not covered by an industrial award or agreement, the fund that is specified in the designated award would apply.The rationale for Labor's model is, firstly, that the overwhelming weight of evidence to the Senate select committee was that consumers of superannuation products are not yet ready for choice. The reason for our stage 1 is that the option for funds to offer choice of investment already exists—that is set out in subsection 52(4) of the SIS Act.Secondly, investment choice within funds is a good way to begin to educate fund members about their retirement income options and control of their superannuation savings. Thirdly, investment choice provides real options for choice as opposed to the government's model, which could see consumers faced with identical choice options merely from different service providers. Fourthly, an added feature of investment choice could be a default investment option based on age risk profiles. This would ensure that fund members do not find themselves in inappropriate investment products which are not suitable to maximising their final retirement income.Stage 2—a genuine employee choice of fund—firstly, would more accurately reflect the demand for choice of superannuation fund from workers rather than choice that is driven either by government or by vested interests. Secondly, it is simple to administer and avoids the complications of the government's model. Thirdly, it is broadly consistent with the choice of fund models which presently operate in the New South Wales and Queensland jurisdictions, therefore leading to less confusion and creating greater national consis tency between state and federal choice of fund models than the government is proposing.Fourthly, employers and employees would have the protection of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in settling disputes. Fifthly, employer liability would be limited compared with what the government is putting forward. It would also avoid the default fund problems that the government's model has, and it would also avoid some of the transitional problems with the two models that the government's bill contains.Many in the industry believe that choice of superannuation fund is dead in the water, which is a logical assumption, given the government's decision to excise the choice of superannuation fund schedule from the omnibus taxation bill that it was originally part of. It was an extraordinary decision on the government's part to put the superannuation schedule, which is quite controversial, with the rest of a taxation bill which was not controversial.The opposition has had some discussions with the government on choice of fund, although those discussions have simply identified the differences between the government's choice of fund model and that proposed by Labor. Key among those differences are those which concern the issue of award superannuation. It is our belief that the government is trying to undermine the role of awards in the regulation of superannuation through the Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1997 .But it ought to be made clear that at no stage has Labor opposed the principle of choice of fund. Indeed, Labor adopted a constructive approach to choice by supporting a Senate select committee reference to examine the choice of fund legislation before it reached the Senate so that it could be dealt with immediately the parliament resumed. That was an unusual step. The Senate does not usually pre-empt the arrival of legislation by examining it first, but we took that step in the interest of getting the debate on choice going. That was to no avail because we are here again today on the same issue that we have visited previously.While the retirement incomes policy established by Labor has been recognised elsewhere as world's best practice, that being put forward by this government—and certainly the way they have proceeded with it in the parliament—is now recognised as world's worst practice. Labor is not going to stand by and see the government undermine the retirement incomes of thousands of Australians.We are going to be moving amendments to this bill designed to give effect to our choice of fund model. If they are not successful, we are going to seek to amend the government's bill to make it less likely that it will undermine retirement incomes. That is not simply an idle concern on our part. It is a concern based on experience in Great Britain, for example, where workers were inveigled into choosing second-rate and third-rate retirement incomes products, and in some cases they lost their savings altogether.It is also a concern based on experience in Chile, where unfettered choice led to workers being persuaded to change from fund to fund on a year by year basis, or even more frequently than that, being given what amounted to bribes or gifts of various kinds—inducements—in order to change the fund to which they belonged. That, clearly, is to the detriment of superannuation and retirement incomes. Any way you look at it, superannuation is a form of deferred gratification. What was being put forward in Chile amounted to instant gratification, very much to the detriment of proper public policy. We will not be allowing that situation to arise here. The amendments which we will be putting forward at the consideration in detail stage will be designed to achieve those objectives.17:16:005325Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I am happy to speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998. We have just heard the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) premise his remarks on the basis that the government is engaged in some darkly muttered strategy about further eroding the power of the trade union movement. I would suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the trade union movement are doing that most effectively on their own account and do not require the assistance of the national government.I point out to the House that Labor colleagues of the member for Wills in the other place have expressed quite a different view about the rationale for the bill and its current necessity. I would like to quote briefly from the remarks by Senator Chris Evans from Western Australia:I think it would be a good thing if the national superannuation policy encouraged real choice so that people could choose investments which were as secure and as rewarding as possible so as to provide them with the best possible retirement income.It is very hard for anyone—even, I presume, the member for Wills—to oppose the principle of choice . . . If we go to the remarks of the Australian Democrats, Senator Allison, their spokesperson on superannuation, acknowledged the fact that many people are locked into non-performing industry superannuation funds at the moment, and this bill is squarely aimed at providing options, choices and practical financial benefits to that class of Australian citizen. I quote Senator Allison:But of course there are duds. Workers do need to be able to exit industry funds that are not performing.Further, industry funds are not sufficiently portable. There remains the problem that moving from one industry to another too often results in moving from one industry fund to another.The senator then cites this startling statistic:We are a country of eight million workers and 18 million superannuation accounts—and she notes what I would have thought was abundantly evident—and that is not an efficient outcome.This bill is about providing greater choice to Australian workers. It is about encouraging higher levels of efficiency in superannuation arrangements. It is about allowing the fresh breeze of competition to blow through corners of the superannuation industry which have been locked up in a form of monopoly. It is about educating the Australian work force on critical matters affecting their future.It is not my purpose to malign all industry funds. On the contrary, there are many that are performing very commercially, very effectively, very admirably and very competitively. But the question does not relate to whether any individual fund is performing or not; the question relates to the freedom of the individual worker to move out of that fund if it is not performing. That is the rationale and, I would have thought, the compelling, irresistible logic behind this government reform.The reform has the further benefit of being another undertaking which this government has delivered. It was a promise we made before going to the last election. It is a promise which we are today seeking to deliver. It is not the case, as was suggested by the member for Wills, that this initiative is dead in the water. That will depend upon the degree of cooperation and comity that can be achieved by members in the other place.This was never going to be an easy task. Before I turn to the specifics of the bill, I will refresh the House about the circumstances in which the nation now finds itself in relation to this question of private savings and of retirement income in particular. The previous speaker continued to recite this sort of Labor mantra that Australia has had no problem with public savings. I suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is palpable nonsense and very dangerous rhetoric in that it demonstrates how quickly we can forget, and how easily we can come to believe our own rhetoric.I suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that any government which is capable in its last six years in office of generating $70 billion in debt by the Commonwealth alone has got a problem with public savings. Any government which takes the view that it is not subject to the laws of gravity and physics in the same way that every other Australian citizen is has a problem with its conscience and its collective memory. It is not of any great consolation for those on the other side to refer to the practices of our neighbours, our trading partners, in this regard, by saying that we do not have as great a public debt as Indonesia; that we do not have as great a public debt as Malaysia; that we do not have as great a public debt as Thailand. I need not finish the sentence or the paragraph.The fact is that the failure of those nations, our trading partners, to pay sufficient attention to the fundamentals of their economy and to subject themselves to some kind of fiscal discipline has resulted in the free fall in the economic fortunes of our neighbours. As reports are currently showing, that has had the most dire and tragic consequences for the ordinary working people of the economies over which those leaders prevailed.We did take the bit between our teeth when we came into government. We resolved to turn around not only the private savings problems which the country faced but also the public savings problems. We have made the hard yards of taking over $10 billion worth of recurrent expenditure out of the Commonwealth accounts. It has been at times a painful experience but, in view of the unfolding tragedy of the Asian economic crisis, I think most Australians today would accept that it was a much needed, unbelievably timely experience and that it was a demonstration of real leadership rather than of mere rhetoric.If we look at the circumstances in the private savings sector, we do find that Australia has a very serious problem. That problem is compounded by a number of demographic trends. Principal among them is the rapidly increasing life expectancy, where we find we have added roughly 20 years to the life expectancy of the average Australian in the last century. That is an extraordinary achievement and something which we ought to be very proud of but it is something which has compelling consequences for public policy and, in particular, for our private savings strategy.In addition to the increase in life expectancy—we will see one girl in three born in Australia today living to the age of 100—we have a reduced birthrate. Again, that is a consistent phenomenon across the Western world. While we have added 20 years to life expectancy this century, the birthrate has more than halved—from over four children per family at the turn of the century to 1.8 children per Australian woman today. That ratio is expected to decline to 1.7 by the year 2010. The result of that is a rapidly declining ratio between taxpayers and retirees. That ratio today is roughly three taxpayers to one retiree. By 2020 on current projections that ratio will further erode to two to one. Unless we can make adequate provision ourselves for our own retirement, we will be in the situation of simply handing on to future generations the responsibility not only of taking care of themselves but of taking care of those who preceded them.While I admit happily that the previous government did take some positive steps towards turning the situation around—and I would particularly like to acknowledge the efforts of the member for Gellibrand, Ralph Willis, who was largely the architect of Labor's superannuation strategy—we nonetheless have this great dilemma that, if we look down the track to 2020, we will find that the erosion in the ratio between taxpayers and retirees, the length of time Australians will spend as retirees, will mean that we simply cannot sustain the current arrangements and the current level of pensioners throughout the population. It will not make me popular to say that the prospect of my children enjoying the same entitlement to pension benefits of 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings is zero. I think these are some of the hard realities we need to start facing up to as a nation.It is one of the reasons why I am supportive of some of the more difficult aspects of this legislation. I quoted earlier from some of the remarks of Senator Allison, and I want to refer to some of her other remarks in the other place which she advanced in opposition to the bill. She expressed the view:The simple problem is that it is unlikely that the vast majority of workers are in a position to make an educated or informed choice on superannuation or, I suggest, are actually interested in doing so.What Senator Allison is really saying is that this is all too hard. She takes, in my view, a somewhat patronising view towards the work force and thinks that these people are too stupid, too ill-educated, too ignorant or too complacent to actually take a serious interest in their own financial futures. I suggest that this sort of attitude on the part of political leaders is one of the reasons why we currently face the enormous problem that we do. If there is a level of complacency in the electorate, our challenge is to address it, provide leadership and turn it around. If there is a lack of education in the work force about the implications of future retirement planning, then it is our task as leaders to encourage and provide that education. If there is confusion in the market about choice and about the proliferation of choice, then we have to do everything in our power to assuage the fears and provide the information required for people to make educated choices.I have referred in the chamber before to my veneration for the convict James Ruse, who was the first Australian to take himself and his family off the government store in about 1792. James Ruse did that by taking his financial affairs into his own hands, by cultivating a farm, by achieving for himself a grant of land—the first real private property in the colony—and by, in effect, taking charge of his own financial affairs. The great challenge we face as a nation is that we have for too long been a nation of employees rather than employers and job creators. We have to create a culture of ownership, a culture of equity and a culture of people making educated choices about their financial futures, and this bill takes a bold stride in that direction. It is for those reasons that the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) in his second reading speech said, when he was referring to the objects of the act, that this would create a greater sense of ownership among Australians over their own savings.That sort of secondary consequence, that effect on the back swing of the bill, ought not be underestimated. Margaret Thatcher used to refer to her goal of creating in Britain one of the world's great share owning democracies. This is one of the great virtues of this government's policy in the sale of Telstra: we are creating in the minds and the hearts of working men and women in marginal seats like my own in Parramatta that sense of ownership of their future, the sense that their financial affairs are in their own hands and that they are capable of making educated choices. That is one of the reasons why I support the bill.Nobody pretends that this task is an easy one. What we are having to do here is to remedy a great defect in the nation's private savings by compulsion. Whenever you introduce the means of compulsion—and I would say they are warranted in this instance—you create secondary problems of regulation. If you are going to compel a person to save, then you must at least give them some option as to the manner in which they save.Opponents of the bill have referred to some of the challenges which we have had to try to overcome, such as a recognition that choice of fund will impose an element of additional administrative cost on employers. There is an argument that the additional cost of advertising among the fund providers is a waste of money and a waste of resources. I suggest that that advertising expenditure is a vital part of the educative process; it is a vital part of helping every Australian to understand the choices that are available. I am happy that the industry is prepared to undertake the expense.There is concern that workers are too risk averse, and that they have a tendency to select funds which are not sufficiently high performing—which are low risk but equally low performing—and that they will not perform well enough to provide a sufficient return to adequately fund retirement. That is precisely one of the challenges we have to overcome. We have to help the electorate to be more comfortable with commercial risk. We have to help the electorate to be more educated in its response to commercial risk, and this bill will help to achieve that objective. The bill goes a very considerable distance towards dealing with concerns that some employers had expressed about the potential for legal liability that might arise from faulty, incomplete or misleading advice to employees in relation to choice of fund. I am confident that the bill has adequately responded to and resolved those concerns.The previous speaker, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), criticised the government on the basis that it had engaged in a robust and comprehensive consultation process with the industry. I suggest that that is a hallmark of a government that listens, that is prepared to respond to the industry's concern and that wants to ensure that its legislation will be workable when it gets to the stage of implementation. I think we ought to acknowledge that there has been some cost to some employers who expended resources preparing themselves for the introduction of choice, but, nonetheless, I think the industry welcomed as a whole the decision to delay implementation for 12 months to ensure that there was proper time to prepare for the new regime.There is still room to improve. We need to look at issues like guidelines for investments in default funds with situations where an employee does not make an election or choice and the employer elects on their behalf. Clearly there is a question of accountability for those decisions but, on the whole, this bill represents a bold step forward. It will provide greater competition. That competition will result in greater levels of efficiency. That efficiency will, in turn, return higher dividends to employees who have exercised the benefit of choice.My naive hope is that over the long term we can establish a greater level of bipartisanship in this place, because it is an issue that deals with the future of all Australians. I have not given up on that hope. I think we have demonstrated a willingness as a government to listen to practical and sensible suggestions from the opposition, from the Independents, and from the industry. This bill largely reflects the incorporation of those suggestions, and I reiterate that we have to look to the future, to the long term, not just to a change in institutional arrangements but to a change in culture. This bill very robustly symbolises that change. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)17:36:005328Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—No area provokes more consternation and at times outrage in the community than constant changes to the area of superannuation. It is an area that has been with us now for a large part of the 1980s and certainly the whole of the 1990s. I recall that, as an employer employing one person from time to time, I found the existence of the thing a damn nuisance, to say the least. I believe that the employee ought to be responsible for their own superannuation and retirement and, consequently, while I was permitted to by the law, I offered the employee the chance to make their own arrangements for their own superannuation by paying that extra three per cent above the award wages. Most of the time I believe they did not bother with that, but I believe that that was the responsibility of the employee, not the employer.Eventually, the Labor government introduced legislation that compelled employers to make sure that their employee was in a particular superannuation fund. Obviously, as a result of that, I, as an employer, was forced somewhat kicking and screaming into doing it. I was never happy with it. Interestingly, I noticed in an article by John Cavanagh in the Australian on 26 May 1998 that 75 per cent of employers basically still take the same view that I did then and said that they preferred less involvement in managing superannuation. Indeed, small business owners in particular see the government's new superannuation member choice arrangements primarily as an opportunity to opt out of the superannuation system altogether. They regard superannuation as an administrative and legal burden and would look for solutions to relieve them of their responsibilities, according to a survey that was published.The survey, which was conducted by a superannuation company, SMF Funds Management, found that two out of three employers are confused about their responsibilities under the new system and their biggest concern is about their duty to educate investors and help them select an appropriate fund, a task that might leave them liable if the chosen fund loses money. It is interesting that the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) made an observation based on what he saw the bill did; namely, he felt that employers were adequately protected by the measures in the bill. I do not necessarily jump in and say that he may have been a little rash in making such a statement. But, based on my reading of clause 32Y of the bill, if that is the protection for employers then I say it should go back to the drafter in a hurry, because in my legal opinion that will not protect employers. That is insufficient to protect employers from anything they might do in relation to advice that they may give to an employee. If that is the provision that is supposed to protect an employer, then heaven help the employer if he is told to rely on that.I think it is fair to say that, interestingly, in a philosophical sense, the side of politics I lean toward and have been a part of for most of my working life was opposed to compulsorily levied superannuation. It took the view that that was not appropriate. Of course, the previous government over a long period of time introduced this system, and it gradually started coming. I suppose it is extremely difficult to untangle it now that there are billions and billions of dollars tied up in this. There is something like $22 billion tied up in industry funds alone. So that gives some indication of the amounts involved. There are huge amounts of money tied up, and huge amounts of money are being made out of this industry by people probably not doing all that much work. At the end of the day, I am sure that many members constantly get a stream of people into their offices complaining about superannuation problems, such as fees which are eroding their money because that money is sitting in a small account somewhere over time. I find that is pretty odd, to actually say, as the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) did, that this is a lifetime investment for working people. Yes, that is great in theory. But in practice can anybody say, `Yes, I am going to be working in the XY industry for the rest of my life, and I will be in a settled job for the rest of that time'?We have now had to realise in the private sector as well as the public sector that there will be periods of unemployment. There will be periods of moving. There will be periods of adjustment and that is when we will get periodic and sporadic peak areas of employment and unemployment. That is when we will get these problems with funds and the problems with fees. I often wonder why fees are taking money out of those funds so that they can basically denude them. If the money were put in a bank or some sort of fixed investment, at least it would retain the corpus of the fund and it would not be denuded by fees. I cannot understand that. I find that many of my constituents cannot. Why can't we look at something like that? Why can't we look at small bundles of superannuation that seem to shunt all over the place? We have 18 million superannuation accounts for eight million workers—that was referred to before. That says a lot in itself.I also hear from the member for Wills about world's best practice. It has become a cliche now for everything from container lifts to banking and securities industries and now to superannuation. I always get frightened when I hear the phrase `world's best practice'. When I hear that term I think, yes, subject to a number of qualifications and the qualifications are the devil in the detail in the whole question of what is and what is not world's best practice. It is a similar phrase to one pulls oneself up by one's own bootstraps. I find it almost a meaningless term.Basically, people are sick of the constant changes to superannuation, and now there is a change that is going to hit employers—small businesses—well and truly in the neck. The explanatory memorandum provides that it is going to cost more than $21 million initially and $15 million in recurrent expenditure. So here is yet another impost on small business, something on which all of us in this House are going to have to go back to our small businesses and say, `Sorry, here is another thing; here's another cost for you to employ somebody. Here is another dead dollar gone.' When you add up all these dead dollars, you could have another person in that business, and that is the whole problem with this super, super regulation—and I use the term in a wider sense than `superannuation'. The more regulation, the more dead dollars. I notice in an article in one of the financial papers a Mr Nettheim of Australian Business Ltd who, when talking about potential liabilities in terms of an employer, was quoted as saying that it is quite obvious that employees will go to their employer and say, `What do you think I should do?' and Mr Nettheim says:. . . potential liabilities might dissuade employers from giving advice . . . I can imagine that they will have to have a note, a little piece of paper, when the changes come and they will have to get their employee to sign it. No doubt the note will have to be carefully drafted by solicitors or counsel to ensure that it adequately covers the situation. But then Mr Nettheim says:It would be much safer to direct workers to their accountants or financial advisers.I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the average workers in my electorate cannot afford accountants, let alone financial advisers, because there is nothing left after the end of a pay period to employ a financial adviser or an accountant. With respect to Mr Nettheim, it is an absolutely absurd statement. Are we going to say to the average workers of Australia that they are going to have to consult their financial advisers about these things? Be real!Here we have a direct imposition on business. Yet another cost. It might only be a dollar a week or it might only be $5 or what have you, but it is another dollar out of the ever-decreasing dollar that business has to go around, and yet another disincentive to employers to employ. Why can't we encourage people to be responsible for their own retirement? The Labor Party brought this system in and I guess we are stuck with it now, but why can't there be a greater encouragement offered to employees to plan and work out their own retirement?So now we have a situation which I used to think was a case of this government trying to relieve the burden for small business. Now it is going to impose additional burdens on small business, and I think that is a very undesirable state of affairs and, again, one that will leave even more cynicism out there in the community when the government starts telling small business, `We're all for small business; it's the engine room of the economy, et cetera. But, hang on, we're going to have to get you to pay a few more dollars in relation to superannuation.' The cynicism is already bursting out there and the electorate is just waiting for the relief valve of the next election to express its views about that.Overall, I have some reservations about this legislation. I think it is legislation that has not been properly thought through, and I will not be voting on it. But I would say that employers have certainly got a lot of thinking to do. It is definitely an issue for small business. An article in the Australian Financial Review says:Mr Brad Pragnell of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants said: `Coping is definitely an issue, especially for small business'.Small companies were unlikely to be covered by certified agreements that included super clauses and would consequently bear the brunt of the new laws, Mr Pragnell said.That did not need to be said but there it is. The article goes on:Employees covered by agreements with provision for super do not have to be offered super choice.It will be a double-whammy according to Mr Pragnell, because small companies are the least likely to have the necessary funds to administer choice.`Choice will cost on all levels. If an employer opts for limited choice, there will be a cost involved in choosing the four funds to be offered to employees,' Mr Pragnell said.`Unlimited choice could involve expensive administration. Whatever the decision, material will need to be prepared and distributed to employees and, again, this will cost money.'On it goes, and we see yet another change to this ever-shifting sand of superannuation. I think people are basically sick of it and would like a system where they can be absolutely sure that their superannuation is protected. I am talking about workers who, unfortunately in this day and age, are compelled to move from job to job with periods of unemployment in between. And what happens to the money? It is gone in fees in the meantime, and they cannot get access to it anyway when they are desperate, which is most of the time—or there is this great administrative process to get access to it. So I think it is a system that has got to be carefully looked at again.Yet again we have the government proposing to move on superannuation with absurd proposals to legislate in relation to divorce superannuation. That is another great furphy, because it already exists in Family Court proceedings: I have never been in one case where it has not been taken into account; never. Yet the Prime Minister announced on International Women's Day, `We are going to make it fifty-fifty.'4T4MELHAMMr Melham—What a charade!SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—What a joke! Apart from anything else, it takes no account of the individual circumstances that exist in a particular relationship. Anyway, that is another issue, and I obviously will get sat down if I go on too much about it.It is still related to superannuation and, again, I do have great sympathy for maintaining the industry funds because I think the trade union movement does have a role to play in relation to industry funds. I think the role of trade unions—and, again, I very much support choice in unionism—to maintain and protect workers for their retirement is an important one to have. It is one of the very significant roles of unions in the 1990s. The old `knock `em down, bash `em out' role is going, thankfully. The protection by unions of workers in the superannuation area and the provision holidays at cheaper locations and those sorts of areas are good things.I think the idea of cheap, low cost industry funds is very good. Yet are they going to survive under these proposals? I have my doubts about that, and doubts have been expressed in various articles in the Australian Financial Review and elsewhere about this. I do say in respect of employers and employees there are going to be casualties. As Alison Kahler from the Australian Financial Review says, `The shake-out in superannuation threatens casualties.' These are matters we should look at in particular in relation to industry funds. All in all, I have grave reservations about this legislation and I will not be supporting it.17:54:005331Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I would like to make a few short comments in summary in regard to this debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998 , this very important government initiative to provide employees with greater choice of superannuation fund. I note that the choice of fund provisions were originally introduced into parliament in schedule 5 of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997. Those provisions were excised from that legislation to ensure the timely passage of other measures contained in that bill, in particular the savings rebate.At present many Australian workers have no choice of superannuation fund. They have no choice about where their employer superannuation contributions are paid, despite the fact that these contributions are compulsory and form part of their remuneration. This lack of choice is undemocratic and unfair. The government's choice model rectifies this situation by giving employees the ability to choose their superannuation fund. This will give them greater control over their superannuation savings.The arrangements will also increase competition and efficiency in the superannuation industry and will lead to a greater consumer focus by the industry. The legislation to give effect to choice of funds has had the benefit of extensive discussion with industry and other groups. Late last year the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) announced a range of enhancements to significantly reduce the administrative burden on employers while ensuring that employees had effective choice of fund. These enhancements were positively received by employer and industry groups. The government's choice of fund arrangements will include an effective disclosure regime and a publicly funded information campaign. These will ensure that employers are aware of their obligations under choice of fund and that employees have the necessary information to make informed choices.The opposition has indicated that it has a number of amendments to this legislation. The opposition in fact has developed an alternative choice model. This choice model essentially picks up one element of the government's choice regime, namely, an informal agreement approach. However, the Labor Party model does not guarantee any choice of fund to workers at all. Under Labor's model, if an employer does not accept a fund nominated by an employee, that is just too bad, and they have no choice. This is one of the reasons why the government does not support Labor's alternative model. Other foreshadowed opposition amendments to the government's model are essentially designed to totally undermine choice. In fact, it is very interesting that they do not incorporate into their own model the key amendments they seek to make to the government's model. This is a clear indication that they are not trying to improve the government's model, rather they are trying to wreck it.One example of this is that under the opposition's foreshadowed amendments to the government's legislation, if an employee chooses a fund other than an award fund, employers may still need to contribute to the award fund, therefore having to pay two lots of superannuation guarantee. Clearly, this is ridiculous. We will therefore be opposing the foreshadowed opposition amendments.We would hope that the opposition finally accepts that the government's legislation provides employees with choice of fund in an effective, fair and reasonable manner and does not maintain these amendments. For its part, the government is willing to continue to negotiate with the opposition to achieve an effective and workable choice model for the benefit of all workers. I thank all those members who have participated in this debate, and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time5332Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:59:005332Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 39 (line 17), omit the Schedule, substitute:Schedule 1—Choice of superannuation investments and superannuation fundsPart 1—Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 19921 Subsection 6(1)Insert: Commonwealth employee means an employee of the Commonwealth.2 Subsection 6(1)Insert: Commonwealth industrial award means: (a) an industrial award or determination made under a law of the Commonwealth; or (b) an industrial agreement approved or registered under such a law.3 Subsection 6(1)Insert: CSS means the scheme known as the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme.4 Subsection 6(1)Insert: defined benefit superannuation scheme has the meaning given by section 6A.5 Subsection 6(1)Insert: defined benefit member means a member entitled on retirement to be paid a benefit defined, wholly or in part, by reference to either or both of the following: (a) the amount of the member's salary: (i) at the date of the member's retirement or an earlier date; or (ii) averaged over a period before retirement; (b) a specified amount.6 Subsection 6(1)Insert: PSS means the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme within the meaning of the Superannuation Act 1990 .7 Subsection 6(1)Insert: State industrial award means: (a) an industrial award or determination made under a law of a State; or (b) an industrial agreement approved or registered under such a law.8 Subsection 6(1)Insert: Territory industrial award means: (a) an industrial award or determination made under a law of a Territory; or (b) an industrial agreement approved or registered under such a law.9 Subsection 6(1)Insert: unfunded public sector scheme means a public sector scheme that is a defined benefit superannuation scheme: (a) in respect of which no fund is established for the purposes of the scheme; or (b) under which all or some of the amounts that will be required for the payment of benefits are not paid into the fund established for the purposes of the scheme or are not paid until the members become entitled to receive the benefits.10 Subsection 19(2)Omit "subsection (4)", substitute "subsections (2A) and (4)".11 After subsection 19(2)Insert:(2A) If an employer makes one or more contributions (the no choice contributions ) to a fund other than a defined benefit superannuation scheme, or an RSA, on behalf of an employee during a quarter and the contributions are not made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements, the quarterly shortfall for the employer in respect of the employee is increased by the amount worked out with the formula:25% x Notional quarterly shortfall — Amount worked out under subsection (2)where: notional quarterly shortfall is the amount that would have been worked out under subsection (2) if the no choice contributions had not been made.Note: Part 3B sets out the choice of fund requirements.(2B) If: (a) a reduction of the charge percentage for an employee for a quarter is made under subsection 22(2) in respect of a defined benefit superannuation scheme; and (b) there is at least one relevant day in the quarter where, if contributions (the no tional contributions ) had been made to the scheme by the employer for the benefit of the employee on the day, the notional contributions would have been made not in compliance with the choice of fund requirements; and (c) section 19A (which deals with certain cases where no contributions are required) does not apply to the employer in respect of the employee in respect of the scheme for the quarter;the quarterly shortfall for the employer in respect of the employee is increased by the amount worked out with the formula: 25% x Notional quarterly shortfall — Amount worked out under subsection (2)xNumber of days of conditions days Relevant days quarterwhere: notional quarterly shortfall is the amount that would have been worked out under subsection (2) if no reduction were made under subsection 22(2) in respect of the scheme. number of breach of conditions days is the number of relevant days in the quarter on which, if a contribution had been made to the scheme by the employer for the benefit of the employee, those contributions would have been made not in compliance with the choice of fund requirements.Note: Part 3B sets out the choice of fund requirements.(2C) The following days in a quarter are relevant days for the purposes of subsection (2B): (a) if the value of B in the formula in subsection 22(2) for the quarter is 1—every day in the quarter; or (b) in any other case—every day in the quarter that is in the shorter of the scheme membership period or the certificate period referred to in subsection 22(2).(2D) A reference in subsections (2A) and (2B) to the quarterly shortfall being increased includes a reference to the shortfall being increased from nil.12 After Part 3Insert:Part 3A—Choice of superannuation investment requirementsDivision 1—Overview of Part32A Purpose of PartThis Part sets out the requirement for certain superannuation funds to offer members a choice of investments within the fund.32B Meaning of funds —includes RSAs and schemes(1) In this Part: fund means: (a) a superannuation fund; and (b) a superannuation scheme; and (c) an RSA;but does not include a defined benefit superannuation scheme or a fund of which a member is a defined benefit member.(2) For the purposes of this Part, the holder of an RSA is taken to be a member. Division 2—Which contributions satisfy the choice of superannuation investment requirements?32C Contributions that satisfy the choice of superannuation investment requirementsContributions to certain funds(1) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is made in compliance with the choice of superannuation investment requirements if the contribution is made to a fund, that, at the time that the contribution is made: (a) satisfies the requirements of section 32D; and (b) is a fund in which an employee has chosen an investment strategy in accordance with Division 4; or (c) is a complying fund which offers member investment choice with a minimum of 3 investment options;or, if the employee is not a Commonwealth employee who is a member of the CSS or the PSS, is an unfunded public sector scheme.Small funds(2) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of superannuation investment requirements if the contribution is made to a fund with fewer than 50 members.Contributions before certain date (3) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of superannuation investment requirements if the contribution is made before 1 July 1999.Division 3—What are the choice of superannuation investment requirements?32D The choice of superannuation investment requirementsA fund satisfies the choice of superannuation investment requirements if it offers members: (a) a choice of 3 or more investment strategies including low, medium and higher risk strategies; and (b) a description of the investment objectives of each of the strategies mentioned in paragraph (a); and (c) information to assist the member or prospective member to understand the effect of, and the risks associated with, each of the strategies offered.Division 4—Choosing an investment strategy within a superannuation fund32E Notification by employerAn employer must notify each employee of his or her right to choose an investment strategy within a superannuation fund.32F What happens if an employee does not choose an investment strategy?If an employee does not make a nomination within 28 days after receiving a notification under section 32E, the employee's contributions are to be invested at the discretion of the fund trustees, provided that the fund trustees take all reasonable steps to maximise the retirement income return to the employee, taking into account the employee's age and pattern of employment.Part 3B—Choice of fund requirementsDivision 1—Overview of Part32G Purpose of PartThis Part sets out the circumstances in which contributions are made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements.32H Meaning of funds —includes RSAs and schemes(1) In this Part fund has the same meaning as in Part 3A.(2) For the purposes of this Part, the holder of an RSA is taken to be a member.Division 2—Which contributions satisfy the choice of fund requirements?32J Contributions that satisfy the choice of fund requirementsContributions to certain funds(1) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is made in compliance with the choice of superannuation investment requirements if the contribution is made to a fund, that, at the time that the contribution is made, is: (a) a chosen fund for the employee (see Division 3); or (b) a default fund for the employee (see Division 4); or; (c) if the employee is not a Commonwealth employee who is a member of the CSS or the PSS—an unfunded public sector scheme. Contributions under AWAs or certified agreements(2) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made under, or in accordance with, an AWA or a certified agreement under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 or a certified agreement under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 .Contributions under certain Victorian agreements(3) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made under, or in accordance with, an employee agreement that was in force under the Employee Relations Act 1992 of Victoria and which continues to be in operation by virtue of section 515 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 .Contributions before certain date(4) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made before 1 July 2000.Contributions made after employees cease employment(5) If: (a) an employee ceases to be employed by an employer; and (b) after the employment ceases, the employer makes a contribution to a fund for the benefit of the employee and in respect of the employment;then, for the purposes of this section, the contribution is taken to have been made immediately before the employment ceases.Note: This section is used in determining if a quarterly shortfall for an employer is increased under subsection 19(2A) or 19(2B). Where subsection 19(2B) is relevant, the contributions referred to in this section are the notional contributions referred to in paragraph 19(2B)(b).Division 3—What is a chosen fund?32K What is a chosen fund?A fund is a chosen fund for an employee if it is a fund nominated for the time being by the employee and approved by the employer.32L Choosing a fund(1) This section sets out the procedures that an employer must go through before an em ployer makes a contribution to a fund for the benefit of an employee.(2) The employer must: (a) notify the employee of his or her right to choose a fund; and (b) invite the employee to make a choice of fund within 28 days after being notified under paragraph (a).(3) An employee may nominate a fund to his or her employer.(4) A nomination under subsection (3) must be in writing and agreed by the employee.(5) The employer must give the employee a copy of the nomination and of the employer's approval of the nomination.(6) The employer must retain a copy of the nomination.(7) An employer who intentionally or recklessly contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding 10 penalty units.32M When must a choice be offered? An employer must offer a choice of funds: (a) to any new employee; and (b) to any existing employee who makes a written request to the employer to do so; and (c) when the employer becomes aware that there ceased to be any chosen or default fund for an employee. 32N Contributions satisfy Commonwealth, State or Territory industrial award requirementsA requirement in a Commonwealth industrial award or a State industrial award or a Territory industrial award that an employer make contributions to a superannuation fund on behalf of an employee is not enforceable to the extent that the employer instead makes the contributions on behalf of the employee, in compliance with this Part, to another superannuation fund that is a chosen fund or a default fund. 32O Information to be provided by funds to enable employee choiceInformation provided by funds to employees to enable employees to choose an appropriate fund must be in a prescribed form. Division 4—Default funds 32P When is there a default fund? There is a default fund for an employee at any time when there is no chosen fund for that employee. 32Q What fund is a default fund? (1) If: (a) an employee has been offered a choice of funds under section 32L but has not nominated a fund within the time provided; and (b) the employee is covered by a Commonwealth, State or Territory industrial award;the default fund is the fund specified in the industrial award. If there is more than one fund specified in the award, the default fund is the one chose by the employer for that purpose. (2) If: (a) an employee has been offered a choice of funds under section 32L but has not nominated a fund within the time provided; and (b) the employee is not covered by a Commonwealth, State or Territory industrial award;the default fund is the fund to which a majority of employees at that employee's workplace belong. (3) If: (a) an employee has been offered a choice of funds under section 32L but has not nominated a fund within the time provided; and (b) the employee is employed by a new business which is not covered by a Commonwealth, State or Territory industrial award;the default fund is the fund specified in the relevant industrial award. Part 2—Retirement Savings Accounts Act 199713 Section 52Repeal the section. 14 Subsection 53(3)Repeal the subsection. 15 Subsection 56(1)Omit "52,". 16 Subsection 62(1)After "employee", insert "unless the RSA is a chosen fund for the employee under Part 3B of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 .Part 3—Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 199317 Subsection 143(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The object of this Part is to prohibit false and misleading conduct and other forms of improper conduct in relation to superannuation interests and regulated documents.18 After paragraph 143(2)(e)Insert: (ea) other forms of improper conduct (sections 148CA);19 After section 148CInsert:148CA Improper conduct(1) The trustee of a superannuation entity, or an associate of such a trustee, must not: (a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person; or (b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person at a particular price; or (c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person;on the condition that one or more of the employees of the person will hold, or has applied or agreed to hold, a superannuation interest provided by the trustee or the associate of the trustee.(2) A trustee of a superannuation entity, or an associate of such a trustee, must not refuse: (a) to supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person; or (b) to supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person at a particular price; or (c) to give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person;for the reason that one or more of the employees of the person does not hold, or has not applied or agreed to hold, a superannuation interest provided by the trustee or the associate of the trustee.(3) If: (a) the trustee of a superannuation entity, or an associate of such a trustee, contravenes subsection (1) or (2); and (b) a person suffers loss or damage because of the contravention;the person may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the trustee or the associate of the trustee, as the case may be.(4) The action must be begun within 6 years after the day on which the cause of action arise. (5) This section does not affect any liability under any other provision of this Act or under any other law.In moving this amendment I point out that in the second reading debate the House heard some very strong arguments against the government's choice of fund model. It is extremely doubtful whether the government's model will achieve the aims it claims it will, particularly lower fees and charges and better retirement incomes. The opposite is more likely to occur, whereby the retirement incomes of thousands of Australians will be diminished as a result of the government's choice model.The government's model gives enormous power to employers who can either choose the range of funds employees will have on offer or veto the choice the employee makes without recourse to an independent arbiter—for example, the Industrial Relations Commission. It is essentially deregulation of the retail superannuation market.It also requires the use of a default fund arrangement. Where an employee does not exercise a choice after 28 days, the employer can pay superannuation contributions to any fund of the employer's choosing, regardless of the merits of that fund in meeting an employee's retirement income needs. For example, a young worker could end up in a low return retirement savings account—an RSA—which is generally considered inappropriate for younger workers.The government's legislation contains a specific clause which overrides industrial award provisions which specify superannuation fund. That means that from the start date an employer cannot continue to pay superannuation to his or her employees in accordance with the award or they will be in breach of the choice act.The Senate Select Committee on Superannuation examined choice and found a number of problems with the government's model: the need for a comprehensive education campaign before choice is introduced; increased costs to funds in administration and marketing resulting in lower retirement incomes for fund members; increased costs to employers in administration and compliance; insurance gaps created by the default fund arrangement; and the difficulty in presenting consistent disclosure information which is easily understood.In light of this overwhelming evidence against the government's choice model, Labor is seeking the support of the House for an alternative choice of fund model which provides for employee choice rather than employer choice. As I said earlier, what we are looking at is a phased, two-stage approach. First, from 1 July next year we have member investment choice within funds, thus requiring funds with more than 50 members to offer members a minimum choice of three investment options based on a low, medium, and high risk ratio. For example, one fund could be predominantly capital backed, one could be balanced, and another option could be an equities or growth fund. This already happens in many industry and public offer funds. It is referred to as member investment choice.Defined benefit schemes, due to the nature of the benefit accrued, will not have to meet the member investment choice requirement. In any case, there is a general trend in the superannuation industry towards accumulation type schemes. Contributions to funds which already satisfy member investment choice will be taken to be contributions which meet the member investment choice model. That means that funds which already offer member investment choice and employers who contribute to those funds will be able to continue as they already are—for both new and existing employees. That is a big difference from the government's model which requires employers to do all sorts of twists and turns to comply with the complicated choice model that is proposed.Employers will be required to notify employees of their right to choose an investment strategy within a superannuation fund at the same time as they notify the employee of the superannuation entitlements. This will not significantly increase employer compliance costs or burden them, as employers already notify employees of what their superannuation entitlements are and what fund options are available. It is a simple matter for employers to notify employees of their right to choose an investment strategy. Of course, they will not be permitted to offer investment advice.Complying superannuation funds will be required to provide their fund members with information about member investment choice and their options. That information will be designed to assist the member to understand the effect of—and the risks associated with—each of the investment strategies offered and to make an informed choice. That is something that the government's model has ignored. Where a fund member does not make a choice of investment strategy the fund trustee will have the discretion, as they currently do, to invest the member's contributions with the intention of maximising the member's retirement income. The trustee will be required to take age and pattern of employment into consideration. (Extension of time granted)The second phase under Labor's choice of fund model is for genuine employee choice. From 1 July 2000, if employees so desire, they will be able to override the superannuation fund which is prescribed in their industrial award and, with the agreement of the employer, have their superannuation contributions paid into a fund of the employee's choice. This is a genuine employee choice model. To be a valid choice, it ought to be made in writing, signed by the employee. Employers and employees who negotiate a certified agreement or an Australian workplace agreement will be taken to have exercised choice.We would need regulations governing standard disclosure provisions to apply to key feature statements offered directly to employees, particularly in order that we could get a simple comparison of fees, charges, fund earnings and the like. The government is apparently already drafting these regulations and ought to have released this crucial information by now. It is indeed difficult to consider such a critical bill, which has the potential to impact on the retirement income of every Australian, without the crucial disclosure and key feature statement regulations out in the open for public examination.In the event of a dispute between employer and employee, the Industrial Relations Com mission would act as the independent arbitrator. Where an employee does not make a choice after 28 days, a default fund arrangement automatically occurs. The default fund is the fund nominated in the industrial award covering that worker. Where an employee is not covered by an industrial award, the default fund becomes the fund to which the majority of employees in the workplace or business belong. In the event of a new business which is not covered by an industrial award or agreement, the fund specified in the designated award would apply. Unlike the default fund under the government's model, an employer does not have the discretion to arbitrarily choose a default fund for the employee, which could see some employees end up in unsuitable superannuation funds.The sanctions for not complying with Labor's model would be the same as those applying with the government's model. But the important thing to recognise in Labor's model is that employers can continue to contribute under current superannuation arrangements without having to do the backflips and somersaults they will have to execute in order to meet the government's requirements. Choice under Labor's model is clearly driven by employees and should be welcomed by employers for its simplicity and flexibility. In addition, we maintain the role of the Industrial Relations Commission in protecting both employers and employees. Our model is simple to administer. It avoids the complications of the government's model. Employers must surely be shuddering at the thought of having to comply with this choice of fund model. Small businesses in particular will be happy to hear about Labor's simple worker driven model. It is bizarre that a government which promised to cut small business red tape would be contemplating introducing the model that they have put here.I note that there are some concerns by some parties that Labor's model could see some employees forced into a change by unscrupulous employers. There is no doubt that that could occur, but the following employee protections will be established to ensure that employees are indeed protected. Employees or their representative will be able to take employers to the Industrial Relations Commission in the event of a dispute. Disclosure of information will be provided alongside an education campaign giving employees the capacity to make an informed choice. Third line forcing provisions will be inserted which will place significant financial penalties on any employers who enrol employees in a fund from which they—that is, the employers—receive a financial benefit.Finally, the government would be encouraged to introduce the long overdue Insurance Conduct and Disclosure Bill, which I understand is ready for introduction. This bill will provide substantial protection for consumers of life insurance and superannuation products who act on advice given by advisers which proves to be misleading. These are substantial protections. Combined with the fact that Labor's model is employee driven, we believe that consumers will be appropriately and adequately protected. I commend Labor's model and amendment No. 1 to the House. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.18:13:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Hon. J.A. Crosio)45Adams, D. G. H. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. 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. Hanson, P. L.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.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.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.84Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Albanese, A. McLachlan, I. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.18:17:005340Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—by leave—I move:(2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 2), omit "1 July 1999", substitute "1 July 2000"(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (lines 3 to 16), omit the item, substitute: 20 Subsection 6(1)Insert: industry-based superannuation fund means a complying fund or complying superannuation scheme that:(a) has 2 or more employer-sponsors; and(b) is a fund which operates on a not-for-profit basis; and(c) complies with section 89(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (basic equal representation rules).A fund is also an industry-based superannuation fund if it meets the above requirements and is nominated in a Commonwealth award, a State award or a Territory award immediately before the commencement.(4) Schedule 1, item 25, page 11 (line 6), omit "1999", substitute "2000".(5) Schedule 1, item 32, page 14 (lines 14 to 20), omit subsection (2), substitute:Contributions under AWAs, Certified Agreements or Federal or Territory Awards(2) A contribution to a fund by an employer for the benefit of an employee is also made in compliance with the choice of fund requirements if the contribution is made under or in accordance with, an AWA, a certified agreement under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , a certified agreement under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 , a Commonwealth industrial award, or a Territory industrial award.(6) Schedule 1, item 32, page 15 (lines 25 to 30), omit paragraphs (a) to (c), substitute "before 1 July 2000".(7) Schedule 1, item 32, page 20 (lines 2 to 19), omit subsections (1) and (2), substitute:(1) Subject to this section, if before the commencement of this section (a) an employer has contributed to a complying superannuation fund, a complying superannuation scheme or an RSA for the benefit of an employee and that contribution would have been in compliance with the choice of fund requirements; and (b) it is possible for the employer to contribute to the fund on behalf of the employee; and (c) since the employer last contributed to that fund for the benefit of the employee, the employer has not contributed to any other fund that, at the time the employer contributed to it, was a chosen fund for the employee;the fund is a default fund for the employee.Note: All such contributions made before 1 July 2000 are in compliance with the choice of fund requirements: see subsection 32C(4).(2) If there is not a default fund for the employee under subsection (1), the employer may select as a default fund for the employee: (a) any complying defined benefit scheme; or (b) any complying superannuation fund or complying superannuation scheme which: (i) provides a choice of investment options; or (ii) where the employee does not select an investment option within 28 days of being invited to, places the employee's contributions in a fund to be invested at the discretion of the fund trustees, provided that the fund trustees take all reasonable steps to maximise the retirement income return to the employee, taking into account the employee's age and pattern of employment; or (iii) unless the employee otherwise chooses, provides insurance in respect of the death or permanent disability of the employee; and (iv) complies with such other standards as may be prescribed.(2A) A fund is not a default fund for the purposes of this section if a commission is payable to any person in respect of the addition of employees to the fund, scheme or RSA or in respect of the payment of contributions to the fund, scheme or RSA.(8) Schedule 2, item 32, page 23 (lines 5 to 9), omit subsection 32Q(1), substitute:(1) For a limited choice offer to be valid, the offer must give the employee at least 4 choices from which to choose. Each choice must be a complying superannuation fund, a complying superannuation scheme or an RSA. No commission must be payable to any person in respect of the addition of employees to the fund, scheme or RSA or in respect of the payment of contributions to the fund, scheme or RSA.(9) Schedule 1, item 32, page 24 (line 3), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add:provided that the fund, scheme or RSA must not be one in respect of which commission is payable to any person in respect of the addition of employees to the fund, scheme or RSA or in respect of the payment of contributions to the fund, scheme or RSA.(10) Schedule 1, item 32, page 26 (lines 25 to 32), section 32.(11) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 13), after item 40, insert:40A At the end of section 40Add:(5) The Commissioner must not give a notice under this section, stating that an entity is a complying superannuation fund, complying approved deposit fund or pooled superannuation trust unless the Commissioner is satisfied that any computer system used by the entity in the administration of its members' benefits is year 2000 compliant.(6) In this section, year 2000 compliant means that the performance and functionality of a computer system will not be affected by the change in date from 31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000.40B At the end of section 46Add ", provided that the fund has provided evidence to the Commissioner that any computer system used by the fund for the administration of its members' benefits is year 2000 compliant within the meaning of subsection 40(6).(12) Schedule 1, item 45, page 34 (lines 2 and 3), omit the item, substitute: 21 Subsection 143(1)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(1) The object of this Part is to prohibit false and misleading conduct and other forms of improper conduct in relation to superannuation interests and regulated documents.(13) Schedule 1, item 46, page 34 (line 11), after paragraph (e), insert:(ea) other forms of improper conduct (sections 148CA); and(14) Schedule 1, item 50, page 36 (after line 15), after section 148C, insert:148CA Improper conduct(1) The trustee of a superannuation entity, or an associate of such a trustee, must not: (a) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person; or (b) supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person at a particular price; or (c) give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person; on the condition that one or more of the employees of the person will hold, or has applied or agreed to hold, a superannuation interest provided by the trustee or the associate of the trustee.(2) A trustee of a superannuation entity, or an associate of such a trustee, must not refuse: (a) to supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person; or (b) to supply, or offer to supply, goods or services to a person at a particular price; or (c) to give or allow, or offer to give or allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or credit in relation to the supply, or the proposed supply, of goods or services to a person;for the reason that one or more of the employees of the person does not hold, or has not applied or agreed to hold, a superannuation interest provided by the trustee or the associate of the trustee.(3) If: (a) the trustee of a superannuation entity, or an associate of such a trustee, contravenes subsection (1) or (2); and (b) a person suffers loss or damage because of the contravention;the person may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against the trustee or the associate of the trustee, as the case may be.(4) The action must be begun within 6 years after the day on which the cause of action arise.(5) This section does not affect any liability under any other provision of this Act or under any other law.(15) Schedule 1, item 67, page 39 (line 15), omit "1999", substitute "2000".I wish to speak in support of these amendments. Included within the amendments are amendments which would extend the start date of choice to 1 July 2000 for both new and existing employees. The government has already announced that it is seeking to extend the start date for new employees beyond 1 July 1998 to 1 July 1999. Labor welcomed that, but it is still puzzled as to why there have to be two different start dates for new and existing employees.We believe that the start date for new and existing employees ought to be the same and that it ought to be 1 July 2000. The whole superannuation industry has called for this extension of time, including the peak superan nuation body—the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. Labor's amendment clarifies confusion between different start dates for new and existing employees, which has the potential to create not only confusion for employees and employers but also division amongst employees who will have different employment provisions while working in similar jobs.Furthermore, extending the start date will allow a full education campaign to be run, which will allay employer fears as well as allow employees to make an informed choice. It also allows the industry to gear up for choice of fund, which will certainly require massive changes to infrastructure. Extending the start date will allow time to consider the regulations governing disclosure requirements, and disclosure requirements will be the most crucial part of the complicated choice of fund jigsaw that the government has assembled. It is also proving to be the hardest piece to find.However, if employees are unable to understand or compare superannuation choices—that is to say, they need to be able to compare apples with apples—then the choice will be an extremely risky public policy proposal to force on the Australian people. The more time to get the disclosure regulations together, the better. Extending the start date to 1 July 2000 will also allow the government to consider adopting the opposition's model, which is, in our view, a better model.We also have amendments which revise the definition of `industry based fund'. This amendment replaces the government's definition of industry based fund with a definition which more accurately reflects what a true industry based fund is. This amendment will only apply in the case where, under the government's model, an employer chooses to offer his or her employees the four choice of funds offer, where an employee will have to choose from one of four funds. It does that by requiring a fund which seeks to qualify under this definition as an industry based fund to be a not for profit fund which operates purely in the best interests of the members of that fund.Many different types of superannuation fund exist in the market. Labor supports that level of market diversity in the interests of allowing informed consumers to choose where possible, but also to drive down fees and charges. Such funds are owned by publicly listed companies which are accountable to shareholders. Those shareholders, when they invest in their chosen company, do so with the expectation of a return on their investment. That return may be funded in part by the fees and charges a company levies on those who invest their superannuation money with them. By contrast, most industry funds do not operate on the basis of providing a return to shareholders who may or may not have a superannuation interest in the company. Instead, most industry funds operate on a not for profit basis, which sees their returns given back to members of the fund, and not going outside or at arms length to shareholders.There are essentially three elements of industry based funds: first, they operate on a not-for-profit basis in that the trustee, its shareholder and the beneficial owners do not make a profit out of the fund; second, they all meet the equal representation requirements set out in the SIS legislation; and third, they have two or more employer sponsors. Under the government's definition of an industry based fund, other types of funds which may bear little resemblance to an industry fund would fall within the definition, including some master trust type products.An article in Personal Investment magazine of December 1997 draws on information from a survey by Rice-Kachor Research and provides a clear demonstration that fees and charges were significantly higher in a master trust arrangement than in an industry fund. (Extension of time granted) Indeed, one comparison with the Sunsuper industry fund showed that Sunsuper would produce a projected end benefit outcome some $200,000 above the lowest master trust and some $100,000 above the average master trust. That said, master trust super funds have a place in the market. Labor is not interested in restricting access to the superannuation market. That is why we proposed an alternative choice of fund arrangement whereby all types of funds would have access to the market, with appropriate safeguards.I want to stress again that this amendment applies only to a specific category of the government's choice of four funds model. It does not prohibit a master trust or any other fund from slotting into one of the other definitions under this choice of fund option, be it a corporate fund, a public offer fund or an RSA. Rather, this amendment is designed to ensure that when an industry fund is offered it is truly an industry fund which meets specific purposes. The government's definition could mean that under the choice of four funds model an employee may not get access to a genuine industry fund with all the excellent features of such a fund.Amendments Nos 4 and 10 relate to the removal of clause 32X, which overrides federal awards. These are crucial amendments, and it is difficult to stress enough their importance. The amendments go to the heart of the entire choice of superannuation debate. The overriding of award based superannuation entitlements, which is what the government is proposing here and in legislation we debated yesterday, is really what the government is all about. These amendments operate together. The effect of Labor's amendment is to remove clause 32X of the government's bill, which would otherwise override federal awards.Because the government has chosen such a convoluted and complex way to introduce forced choice of fund on employers and employees, it had to somehow make employers and employees choose a fund. In other words, if employers or employees take no action and continue to operate in accordance with the legally binding industrial award, they would be in breach of the choice of funds legislation. So the government had to insert a clause overriding awards as well as introduce a separate bill to make sure of that. The Senate superannuation committee examined this issue and found that it created great confusion. It said:The Committee considers there is reason to believe confusion exists about whether section 32X has wider effects. For example, could the section affect the frequency with which contributions are remitted? Would the superannuation guarantee provisions or the award provisions prevail? This confusion may arise out of the Government's proposal to remove superannuation as an allowable matter from the Workplace Relations Act. The Committee believes it would assist if the minister were to clarify whether the effects of section 32X extend beyond nominating a particular fund for the purposes of an award prior to consideration of this legislation in the Senate.This issue has not been adequately addressed. Therefore, it emphasises the need for us to move the amendment that we are now moving.This attempt to override awards is hypocritical. Clause 32T says that awards will not be overridden for the purposes of determining notional earnings bases on which to base an employee's superannuation contributions. The reason for that is that if the award provisions are overridden, employers will lose the basis on which to determine an employee's salary for superannuation purposes because that is contained in awards. That could mean that some employees could choose a fund that would actually require greater contributions than they are presently receiving. That would cost employers more now than some of them are currently paying.Surprise, surprise, the government have decided that they want to do something about this, presumably following lobbying from employer representatives. They say, `We'll insert a clause which says that, even though the award no longer applies for superannuation purposes, we will pretend that it still does in case employers are liable to pay any more than they currently are.' That is the message that we have here. (Extension of time granted) The government want to say in clause 32T that the award still applies, whereas in clause 32X they say that it no longer applies. It is completely hypocritical. Our amendment will let the government off the hook in terms of that hypocrisy by deleting the clause which overrides awards. One hopes that the government will welcome such an amendment.The other amendments that we are moving relate to the default fund option. Because of the complexity of the government's choice of fund model, the default fund arrangements are crucial because many employers and employees simply will not bother with a choice of fund. They will in practice wind up in a default fund. It is therefore extremely import ant that the default fund be a fund which meets certain standards so that employees are not disadvantaged by the government's model. Our amendments will ensure that where a default fund is not a defined benefit scheme it provides a choice of investment options. It has to contain default investment options which ensure that trustees of superannuation funds consider the age and work patterns of fund members when they are determining investment strategies for members. It has to contain death and disability insurance products unless the member chooses otherwise. The government's model has real problems with the death and disability insurance arrangements. It must also not be a product for which a commission is paid.These are minimum standards that are designed to protect those thousands of workers who will not choose a superannuation fund because of the government's model. Instead, employees will be subject to the whim of their employer, who can freely choose a default fund on behalf of the employee without regard to those minimum standards.A particularly important part of this amendment is to prevent a product which is sold on a commission basis from becoming a default fund under the government's model. The reason for this was made clear by the recent Four Corners program which featured the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) trying to defend the indefensible. That program highlighted the disaster which befell the United Kingdom when it sought to introduce choice. The Senate committee received evidence which showed that some 570,000 people were sold inappropriate products, many of which were commission based products, and which saw a compensation bill of more than $10 billion. Should that sort of thing happen here, it would be disastrous. Many people who do not choose a fund will end up in a default fund. ASFA thinks that more than 40 per cent of the seven million Australians with superannuation accounts will not make an active choice and, therefore, will end up in a default fund.Labor's amendment means that the default fund will not be one which is sold to an employer—who is forced by this legislation to choose the default fund at the risk of severe financial penalty—on a commission basis. Commission based products are generally more expensive to enter and exit and also to manage via ongoing fees and charges. Labor's amendment is about better consumer protection for those who do not currently have the appropriate level of understanding about this issue.The final couple of amendments that I want to refer to relate to avoidance of commission based sales under the choice regime. We are endeavouring to outlaw commission based sales in relation to employees who do make a choice. Protecting employees from the government's forced choice model is our ultimate aim because, unlike the government, we have not forgotten that superannuation is about retirement incomes rather than ideology. We think that people who do make a choice under the government's complex choice regime should be protected in the same way as those who do not make an active choice.This amendment is designed to prevent commission based sales of products which receive superannuation contributions. We had the Senate select committee receiving evidence from William M. Mercer about the cost of switching superannuation funds in Chile, a country which has a choice of funds model similar to that which the government is proposing. That evidence stated that some 29 per cent of fund members in Chile switched funds in 1997 with much of the switching triggered by salespeople who are paid whenever a member switches—that is, they receive a commission if they can get someone to switch funds. Under that system, it is said that approximately 38 per cent of the entire cost of managing Chile's superannuation system is related to costs associated with fund switching. The committee received evidence that commission driven sales of superannuation products in Australia could produce similar results to those observed in Chile. (Extension of time granted) We have received representations concerning this matter and we will be considering some of the issues related to commission based selling between here and the Senate and also, of course, taking into account the views of other parties there.We also have amendments concerning superannuation funds and the need for them to be year 2000 compliant. I note that the government announced a major initiative in the 1998 budget which gives businesses an incentive to ensure that their computer equipment is able to survive the so-called millennium bug problem. This amendment gives the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner the discretion to ensure that superannuation funds which satisfy choice of fund must be able to survive beyond 31 December 1999. This will improve investor protection and superannuation by ensuring that contributions are safe into the new millennium.Finally, our amendment concerning third-line forcing provisions is, once again, a very important one. If employers are not discouraged from entering into third-line forcing arrangements with other parties, then the retirement incomes of many Australians will suffer. Third-line forcing refers to the practice of offering incentives for others to act in a certain way. An example in this case might be if a financial institution offered an incentive to an employer to sign up a certain number of employees in a particular superannuation fund. I have got to say that it does not require any great degree of scepticism to contemplate a situation in which a small business goes to a bank seeking a loan, and the bank says, `Yes, you can have the loan, but what about your employees' super?' It does not require any great scepticism to foresee that kind of problem.The Senate superannuation committee examined this issue and found that the issue of incentives being offered could be a major problem under the government's choice of fund model. If a fund choice is based on more than the interests of the employee rather than the employer, then that system will invariably fail if it is not based solely on the interests of the employee. The Senate committee provided an example of a bank which might offer favourable terms and conditions on other products that it was selling to an employer if the employer persuaded employees to switch funds to those being offered by the bank. West Scheme, a Western Australian superannuation fund, submitted that evidence already existed that, within weeks of the Western Australia state government introducing choice of fund, employers were offered financial incentives to meet choice of super fund obligations through a service provider. I think we need some response on whether the Trade Practices Act provisions related to third-line forcing will be adequate to protect employees from bundled selling. Labor believes that this amendment will act as a disincentive to employees to enter into those third-line forcing type arrangements. Having said that in support of the amendments, I hope that the House can, in fact, support these amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Kelvin Thomson's ) be agreed to.18:40:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)45Adams, D. G. H. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.*Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G.* Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.79Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Albanese, A. McLachlan, I. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Brereton, L. J. Vaile, M. A. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.5346Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—read a third time.Bills5346s159Consideration resumed from 1 June.534618:46:005346Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 enacts two significant government policy decisions. The bill completes the abolition of the compulsory export promotion levies on the Australian prawn industry. Until this year, the industry paid two compulsory export promotion levies: the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge. The levies funded prawn promotion activities through the Australian Prawn Promotion Association—the APPA—and cost prawn operators an average of $800 per year.The previous government imposed the levies in 1995, through the Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995, the Prawn Export Charge Act 1995 and the Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995. In December 1996, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, was contacted by a group of prawn operators who said that they strongly opposed paying the compulsory levies and charges. Senator Parer considered their arguments against the background of the government's view that compulsory primary industry levies should only be imposed on an industry if the levies have substantial industry support, and there is significant market failure.Senator Parer decided to hold a plebiscite of the industry, which was conducted by an independent consultant, Coopers and Lybrand. The packages included a `yes' case and a `no' case, prepared by the supporters and opponents, respectively, of compulsory levies. The count of the ballot papers was observed by industry scrutineers.The plebiscite showed that 85 per cent of the operators that voted opposed the levy and the charge. The response rate, 67 per cent, was extremely high. The plebiscite was not, of course, binding, and Senator Parer carefully considered its results, as well as the outcome of discussions with the APPA and representations from prawn operators and exporters. Senator Parer subsequently announced that the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge would be abolished from 1 January 1998.The government partially implemented the decision by making regulations that set the prawn export charge to zero from 1 January 1998. It was not possible to abolish the prawn boat levy by regulation due to technical legal difficulties associated with the definition of a `levy period' in the Prawn Boat Levy Act. Accordingly, the bill defines the final levy period under the act as the period from 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1997.The bill repeals the Prawn Export Charge Act, the Prawn Boat Levy Act and the Prawn Export Promotion Act. However, the repeal will not take effect until 2001, to ensure that outstanding levies and charges can be recovered. The bill also provides that the three acts, regulations made under the acts and any agreements made under the acts will continue to apply after their repeal in respect of any levies imposed before the repeal.I stress that the bill does not abolish the Australian Prawn Promotion Association, which will continue operating with the voluntary support of the prawn industry. The APPA will continue to have access to the $115,000 in accumulated levies held by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.The government enthusiastically supports industries promoting their products overseas. However, it is not willing to use the coercive powers of the state to force prawn operators to pay compulsory promotional levies against their wishes.The second part of the bill amends the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to prohibit commercial fishing operators from taking black marlin and blue marlin in the Australian fishing zone. The bill includes three specific exemptions from the ban: holders of scientific permits; charter fishing operators; and recreational fishers.The bill imposes a penalty of 125 penalty units—that is, $13,750—for a breach of the prohibition and also provides a defence to a prosecution if, upon becoming aware of the taking of the fish, the person immediately takes steps to return the fish to its natural environment. Black and blue marlin are prized by game fishers, but are also caught by commercial fishing operators.In the 1996 election campaign, the government promised that we would impose a mandatory ban on the taking of black and blue marlin by commercial operators if the existing voluntary ban proved to be ineffective. A small number of commercial operators have ignored the voluntary ban; accordingly, we have decided to impose the ban by law.The government's decision is in line with the recommendations of the recent House of Representatives inquiry into fisheries management, and is supported by the commercial fishing industry, charter fishing operators and recreational fishers. It has been argued that the prohibition should be extended to cover striped marlin, or maybe broadbill swordfish. The government believes that the bill represents an honourable and reasonable compromise between the interests of commercial fishers on the one hand and recreational and charter fishers on the other. We would strongly oppose any attempt to extend the ban to cover additional species, and would, if necessary, withdraw schedule 1 of the bill rather than allow it to impose unnecessary restrictions on the fishing industry. I commend the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.18:53:005348O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I indicate to the House that the opposition is supportive of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . We do not propose any amendments to it nor any arguments really against the action being taken by the government. I do express, though, some disappointment at the decision taken by the industry and, quite frankly, I do not blame the minister for the decision he has taken. It is true that the levy was imposed on the industry by the former Labor government. It was imposed with the very clear wish of assisting this industry to get into serious export development and export marketing. The industry has benefited substantially from having a compulsory levy that has helped its operators become focused on those export markets and it has done that with considerable success.However, apparently on coming to office the government received a lot of submissions from operators in the industry who felt that they were not getting the benefit of the levy nor seeing for themselves the benefit of these activities in export marketing. I cannot at all quibble with the fact that there was a plebiscite of the industry and that a substantial majority voted in favour of scrapping the levies. I also note that they were given both a yes and a no case, so it is not for me to say that they were unwise in taking that decision.I do make the point, having had business experience before coming into parliament, that in very difficult times when you face a downturn in business—and clearly there is a substantial downturn in demand from Asia across the whole agriculture and resources section—the last thing you do is cut back your marketing effort. This is, in effect, what this decision represents in this industry.Operators in the industry should understand that this is not a compulsory levy. They do not have to be paying to be in the export marketing game but, for heaven's sake, as business proprietors owning assets in an industry that I predict will be fighting for its share of a very tight market for the next decade, I would be saying to those participants that they will need a strong export presence as they go on.Likewise, we have no difficulty at all with the step taken by the government to now actually mandate the ban on the taking of the marlin. That was a commitment made to the fishing industry prior to the election by the now Prime Minister (Mr Howard). It has taken 2½ years to get around to implementing it. We indicated from the outset that, if the voluntary bans were not effective, stronger protection of these fish needed to be put in place. So, again, we do move with this legislation cooperatively.The minister in his contribution touched upon one area, though, that suggests a huge difference between us. He mentioned that the operators in the prawn industry would be contributing to and have access to the work done by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. What he did not mention though was that the government has actually passed through here and the other place legislation giving effect to a budget cut of $3.6 million in the funding available for fisheries research and development. Universally across the industry, that is regarded as not just a difficult decision; it is regarded as an appalling decision.The fishing industry around Australia, both commercial and recreational, is well aware that we do have serious problems in working through sustainability for the industry. Almost all species are under pressure. The House of Representatives standing committee report focused on this, too, quite correctly, and drew attention to the significant problem of the by-catch. Every one of those problems was raised and dot pointed by the House of Representatives standing committee which said that the answer lay in additional research and development so that we could better develop our management strategies and better position our sustainability arguments.What is the response of the government? It is to cut the funding for the R&D corporation by $3.6 million and to give as an excuse in the parliament that this was hollow log money—that the FRDC in fact had money that was not really being used. The minister has been given all the information dollar by dollar, case by case, with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed. He has been given specific evidence that every dollar of this FRDC money was actually forward committed to R&D projects and was participating in some $30 million odd worth of forward research and development in this industry. Now, the FRDC simply cannot meet those obligations.When the Senate committee further looked at this matter, while the legislation was under consideration in that place, two of the Labor senators, Senator Forshaw and Senator O'Brien, issued a dissenting report to the Senate committee's findings, drawing attention to the fact that the government was endorsing the report of the House of Representatives committee which recommended increased research and highlighted a number of serious management problems in the Australian fisheries, all of which could be answered only by strongly focused and specific research. On the other hand, the FRDC was having $3.6 million—a substantial component of its research budget—taken away. Nothing has changed. We still have a serious problem in the fisheries industry. Yes, the prawn area has been given relief from the compulsory export marketing levy but no answers at all have been given in terms of R&D to support this essential research.As an aside, I saw a press article last week by the industry calling for more action on the part of the navy down in southern waters where we have apprehended poachers around Macquarie and Heard islands. We have all commended the navy in doing that work, but we are now finding that there are more ships down there and there is more work to be done. Everyone is telling us that we have to put in the research.I received reports this week that off the waters of Western Australia there is now virtually a continuous taxi fleet of boats from the north, taking the chance, poaching in Australian waters and putting at risk the sustainability of the fish stocks in the area. That report not only was calling for intervention on the part of the minister to do more to stop these poaching boats but also was calling for some further research to demonstrate how much of a sustainability problem we have there.Right around the coast of Australia, the 3½ million people who are engaged in recreational fishing are all telling us that their favourite fishing spots now do not have any fish in them and asking what we are going to do about it. The commercial fishing industry people, everywhere you go, are saying, `We have serious sustainability problems, and all these quotas and restrictions are working, or are not working, and we do not have enough research to tell us.' And here is the government, with its own House of Representatives standing committee report reinforcing that anecdotal advice to the hilt, pulling $3.6 million out of the R&D budget.I make those comments as an aside. As I indicated, we are supportive of the legislation relating to the export levy and the ban on the marlin taking, but the minister's reference to the opportunity to work with the FRDC has to be tempered with a very clear dose of reality: the government has taken this appalling decision to cut the funding of the FRDC and place further at risk the issue of sustainable management of fishing resources in Australian waters.Debate (on motion by Mr Bob Baldwin) adjourned.Adjournment5350Motion (by Mr Williams) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.535019:05:005350Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The City of Campbelltown in my electorate has many fine qualities in its lifestyle—the scenic hills, the open space, the absence of the sort of congestion that one would normally associate with city living. The great challenge in Campbelltown has always been for public services to keep pace with the rate of population growth, but now, with the population growth slowing somewhat, there is an opportunity for all levels of government to engage in city building projects—the sorts of projects that would build pride, identity and utility in the City of Campbelltown.The main street program is very important, but the initiative that needs to be supported right now by the federal government is the regional sports development at Leumeah. This is a great opportunity to give the south-west of Sydney a sports facility on a regional scale that not only can provide a base for the Western Suburbs Rugby League Club to build its future in the NRL competition but also can be used in the preparation for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. It can also be used for the enormous capacity for athletics in the Campbelltown district. Local soccer teams and other football codes are very interested in this proposed sportsground redevelopment.The state government has come to the party. It has allocated $10 million, and I pay credit to state ministers and local members Michael Knight and Craig Knowles for raising the $10 million needed for this critical project. The Campbelltown City Council has matched that $10 million dollar for dollar. They have contributed $10 million and some other funding for property resumption. It is a great credit to the council and to the Labor Mayor, Meg Oates, that her administration has had the foresight to support this regional development. But $5 million is still needed. The total funding to fulfil the potential of this project is $25 million, so the federal government now, through the member for Macarthur, the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr John Fahey, has a great opportunity—a great prospect—at hand. The state government has contributed $10 million and Campbelltown Council has contributed $10 million. The final $5 million to develop the magnificent regional sports project at Leumeah should come from the Federation Fund. We know that, because the Minister for Finance and Administration, one of our local members in Campbelltown, has form in this regard. He found the sort of money that was needed from the Federation Fund to support the North Sydney rugby league team. He found the millions of dollars that were available from that fund to support the Central Coast of New South Wales with the proposed sportsground development at Gosford.People in Campbelltown are rightly asking: if the local member can do it for Norths, why not Wests? If the local member can do it for the Central Coast, why not his own backyard? I put it to the government and the finance minister in particular that there is an opportunity here for a bipartisan approach. I am willing to do whatever I can in the local area, as have Labor state members, to see this project come about, to realise the full $25 million that is needed. I understand that the government has allocated $200,000 for each member in consultation with a local committee to allocate it to a worthwhile fund. I will put my $200,000 for Werriwa into this project. It matters that much.It is a city building project for regional sports development that will back every single sportsperson in the sports minded region of the south-west of Sydney. I would strongly urge the finance minister, the member for Macarthur, sitting on the Federation Fund committee to find the $4.8 million that is needed, the missing money that is now needed, to bring this project about.As I say, it is something that is so important for our region. It should not involve partisan politics. It should not be a matter of Labor versus Liberal. It should be a matter of commonsense and, I would say, good financial management for the federal government. How many projects would have applied for funding from the Federation Fund, where already three-quarters of the money has been allocated by other levels of government, and would have such a strong regional impact? This is a great opportunity for the federal government to wisely use the federation funding to not even match what has been happening with the allocation from the state government and the Campbelltown City Council.The finance minister claims to be a supporter of rugby league. He says that in his day he has had his head in a few scrums. Now is the time for the minister, as a public administrator in charge of the Commonwealth finances, to support rugby league, to support all codes of sport in the south-west of Sydney, including those in his own electorate, by allocating the additional $4.8 million needed to make this project a reality. I urge the finance minister to act in that fashion. If he can do it for the Central Coast, he can do it for Campbelltown. If he can do it for Norths, he can do it for Wests. Now is the time to act in good faith and bring this project to reality.535119:10:005351Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Yesterday when I was speaking in this House on the gold card I omitted reference to one of the very important people in my electorate, Mayor George Robertson. I would like to take this opportunity in the adjournment debate to recognise what the mayor has done for the veterans in the area of West Torrens and also in my entire electorate of Hindmarsh.George Robertson served in the Second World War and since then has been totally devoted to furthering the interests of the veterans from that war. During the 1995 Year of Remembrance, he was one of the great movers and got things done. As part of that year's celebration, he started the Boulevard of Honour, which is Burbridge Road in the city of West Torrens, in my electorate of Hindmarsh, which connects the airport to the city. By every tree there is a plaque with the name of a soldier who served in the Second World War. That was a great achievement, but it was not his only achievement during that year. He had regular displays in the library and collected memorabilia from people in his area to show to the children and the wider community what went on during the Second World War. He organised a West Beach picnic to celebrate the anniversary. At that picnic we had young people dressed up in the uniforms of all the forces during the Second World War. For those who attended, it was indeed a great event which brought back memories for those who served, and it gave younger people some idea of what went on during that time.At present, the mayor is trying to sponsor a wall of remembrance in which there will be plaques for every ex-serviceman who died during the war. Those plaques will be inserted into the wall if he can find sufficient funding for it. On his behalf, I have certainly urged the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) to support that project.It is on behalf of the veterans in regard to the gold card that Mayor George Robertson has shown his real interest in not just remembering the war, what it stood for and those people who fought but in representing the interests of the individuals who came back from the war and who so much deserved our thanks for what they did and recognition of their service. In doing so, he was a regular visitor to my office. He would pop in from time to time and say, `Chris, how are we going on the gold card?' Every time he did this he prompted me to write yet another letter to the minister saying, `Can we please extend the gold card to all those who did serve in the Second World War?' Of course, that has now been done, as we mentioned, in the legislation. So to Mayor George Robertson, my apologies for not including you last night in the speech I made but many thanks from me and from all your veterans in the community for what you have done and my very best wishes for your speedy recovery and your getting back to full-time work.535119:13:005351Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Last Monday evening, the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) spoke in this chamber about the need for a realistic look at the transport facilities available in her electorate. No-one disagrees with this, but perhaps one disagrees with the interpretation the member has put on it. The member constantly claims that Labor did nothing for Gilmore for 13 years. That is a nonsense. I must say that she has certainly been no Joan of Arc in solving the problems of the Gilmore electorate.Let me make it abundantly clear at the outset that the Labor candidate for Gilmore, Sandra McCarthy, and I unequivocally support the upgrade of trunk road 92. Having at one time represented this area, I was involved in trying to get funds for this road, and I have always supported all efforts for its upgrade. It is essential for the Shoalhaven. It is the most logical route from Sydney to the snowfields and, indeed, from Canberra to the coast. So I am not wearing this nonsense that the Labor Party does not support upgrading this road.I know of no Labor member in the federal, state or local government sphere who does not support this. Indeed, when the honourable member was running around with her story that the Labor spokesman did not support the upgrading of this road and that Labor would not fund it, I went and spoke to him about it. I have had an assurance that Labor will continue with any work or any commitments that have been entered into.I did stress to him, I must say, that, pork barrel or not, this was a good project and was well worthy of funding. It is interesting that, despite all the trumpeting of the member for Gilmore about getting the funds for trunk road 92, all this current government has done is to indicate that they will fund a feasibility study. I might say that there is many a slip in road works between a feasibility study and the actual funding of the road.Now I will turn to what the member for Gilmore has been saying about the Minnamurra Bends. The Minnamurra Bends is on the Princes Highway on the boundary between Throsby and Gilmore, and is an area that I am very familiar with. I obtained funds under the steel regions plan for a bypass of the town of Kiama. This was back in 1984. The Minnamurra Bends has always been a bottleneck, and all local members are aware of this. But I really do think it a bit rich that the member for Gilmore is now talking about the Minnamurra Bends and, indeed, the Princes Highway, being a New South Wales state government responsibility. It was the current member for Gilmore who, as the candidate, had a television and media campaign running. The television adds would churn up every night with shots of the Minnamurra Bends, with her constantly saying that she was not going to tolerate the condition of this section of the Princes Highway if the Liberal Party came to power. Remembering that the Minnamurra Bends formed such a strong part of her election campaign two years ago, what has she done in the time she has been a member to alleviate the problems of the Minnamurra Bends? Zilch. Until Sandra McCarthy, the Labor candidate, started raising questions about the Minnamurra Bends, the member for Gilmore very conveniently forgot the situation. Sandra McCarthy has a petition running about the Minnamurra Bends and has been overwhelmed, as indeed I have been, by the response to her petition regarding this important area.This is the same as the member's stand on youth unemployment. I remember prior to the election when the now member for Gilmore was not going to tolerate youth unemployment in the Gilmore electorate and gave commitments to reducing it. The simple fact is that youth unemployment in Gilmore, under this current government, has now substantially increased, and now the member for Gilmore is telling us that the youth of Kiama and Nowra are dancing in the streets for joy working for the dole.I find it quite humorous that the member for Gilmore talks in her speech about political stunts. No-one did more political stunts than the current member prior to the last election—and she had some pretty good competition from the sitting member. I contrast this with the hard work and dedicated approach of Sandra McCarthy regarding not only the problems of the Minnamurra Bends but also the problems of youth unemployment, the situation concerning the Shoalhaven Paper Mill and many other issues affecting the people of Gilmore. I would like the member for Gilmore—as I have supported her on trunk road 92—to support me on the replacement of Macquarie Pass with Caloola Pass, and I look forward to when Sandra McCarthy is elected as the member for Gilmore and, indeed, to when David Hill is elected as the member for Hughes. Once more the Illawarra will be represented by four hard-working, dedicated Labor members.535319:18:005353Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I wish to outline to the House the sheer hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party on the distribution of preferences and, in particular, the One Nation preference debate which appears to be consuming the Australian Labor Party and the Australian popular press. It is well known that the Australian Labor Party did a grubby preference deal in Lindsay to try to defeat Jackie Kelly. The ALP how to vote card for Lindsay shows that they placed the Australians Against Further Immigration candidate, Vince Townsend, ninth and Jackie Kelly was placed eleventh—and I display the how to vote card.So much for a party that confects so much moral outrage against a party which they describe as having racist overtones on policies. The biggest hypocrite in all of this is the member for Brand, Kim Beazley. He was the one who ran from Swan—my seat—and went to the safer seat of Brand, which had a margin of 3.8 per cent. Mind you, he will not live in the seat of Brand; he is still a constituent of mine living in the leafy suburb of South Perth.It is now history that the member for Brand, Kim Beazley, won the seat by just 387 votes out of 84,371 votes—a margin of 0.4 of one per cent. Kim Beazley, the member for Brand, won with the assistance of Australians Against Further Immigration preferences. On the Australian Labor Party how to vote card for Brand, Phil Rebe of the Australians Against Further Immigration Party was placed sixth and the Liberal candidate, Penny Hearne, was placed eighth. Phil Rebe polled 943 votes or 1.11 per cent of the total. After four other candidates were eliminated, he had gained a total of 1,097 votes and then was eliminated. Of Rebe's votes, 199 went to Kim Beazley—or 18.4 per cent of the vote.As I have already stated, the member for Brand, Kim Beazley, won the seat with a slender 387 votes. Without the 199 Australians Against Further Immigration votes, he would not have won for the following reason: a one vote change is a two vote turnaround in terms of this exercise. Therefore, if all of the 199 votes had gone to Penny Hearne, the member for Brand, Kim Beazley, would have lost by 11 votes—and I hold up the how to vote card for Brand at the last federal election.It is cant and hypocrisy for the member for Brand, Kim Beazley, to have placed Phil Rebe of Australians Against Further Immigration above Penny Hearne on his Australian Labor Party how to vote card, given his stance about placing One Nation last on how to vote cards in the current debate. (Quorum formed) As I said, it is hypocrisy that the member for Brand, Kim Beazley, has this moral outrage against the One Nation position on the how to vote cards. If ever there was a person who benefited from a vote of those who only express these extreme views, it is the member for Brand. (Time expired)535319:23:005353Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—A lot has been said about the emergence of One Nation. I am a bit reluctant to add to what has been said. I am sure the support for that party is based in part on a number of contributing factors. Many people no doubt voted for One Nation simply as a protest against the political establishment—that is, us. Others were surely attracted to the simplistic solutions One Nation seemed to be offering to complex problems: why didn't we think of printing money?We certainly live in difficult times. The pace of change has accelerated. Change is threatening and people are naturally fearful of it. The future seems uncertain. It is also natural that people will seek to resist change. Yet problems such as unemployment and debt are complex and there are no simple solutions. Some people—and I emphasise `some people'—who voted for One Nation are certainly racist. They may not like to admit it, but they have been stirred up by the anti-Asian and anti-Aboriginal rhetoric of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). Yet we need to tell the world that the overwhelming majority of Australians are not racist. One of our greatest strengths is that we are one of the most ethnically diverse nations in the world, yet we have one of the lowest incidences of racial disturbance. We are also one of the most tolerant societies in the world. We can be justifiably proud of this, and we should be telling the world. This is what the world should be hearing about Australia.One of the crucial debates we must have as a nation is the debate on immigration. But, to have an intelligent debate on immigration, we really need to start with a discussion on population. Without some clear population goal, our decisions on the number of migrants we should take each year are purely ad hoc. If we were to do as One Nation seems to be suggesting and implement a policy of zero net migration, our population would begin to decline. We already have negative natural growth, though that could be rectified if the 100,000 abortions carried out each year were prevented, as they surely should be. Yet the member for Oxley is apparently also pro-abortion or, as she said—or others said for her—during the Queensland election, they were not in favour of changing the current laws, which effectively provide for abortion on demand. The Christian Democratic Party, the party of which I am leader now in this place, is the only political party in Australia which proclaims itself proudly to be pro-life. We need those babies. It is wrong that they are being killed; it would be wrong even if the situation were different.The Christian Democratic Party is aware of concerns that some environmentalists have about whether or not Australia can sustain a larger population. But I believe we should have an expanded, not a contracted, immigration program. A larger, balanced immigration program will contribute to higher economic growth rates, and that is part of the solution to unemployment. It is simply a fallacy that immigrants take jobs; they actually create jobs.As the Courier-Mail pointed out yesterday, we are in a unique position to link Australia's economic progress with Asian growth when it resumes in the near future. What fantastic opportunities there will be for us, situated as we are on the doorstep of Asia. Yet the member for Oxley claims that `Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians'. Besides being wrong, this sort of statement is understandably extremely offensive to Asians. But how do you convince those Australians who really do fear the unknown and the unfamiliar? That is the challenge for us in this place: it is the challenge for the government; it is the challenge for all of us.In some respects it is understandable that some older people who fit into this category where they might feel insecure would vote for One Nation. But it is difficult to understand young people or couples with young children doing so. Perhaps we as politicians have failed them. Perhaps the education system has failed them. But there is no doubt in my mind that in time our geography will become more important to us than our history and the opportunities that will be available to us because of that are virtually unlimited.One Nation does present us with some opportunities. We should all have been lulled from complacency. The stakes are high, and I believe the future of this great nation is at risk.535419:28:005354Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I rise tonight to inform the House of the events in my electorate of Paterson over the last few days. As you may be aware, Paterson has been subjected to severe wind storms, with winds peaking last night at 84 knots out at Nobbys Head and winds of 140 kilometres an hour regularly during the day. Even as I speak here now, the winds are blowing through the area at around 100 kilometres an hour.The total effect of the devastation that has been caused up there is not known as yet. Over 30 per cent of the electorate is in blackout with no electricity. Tonight, as we sit in this warm House, we should spare a thought for families up there without electricity and heating and consider what they are going to have to get through tonight.Today the lower Hunter area emergency services took over 1,700 calls for assistance. We have many houses unroofed. Of even greater devastation is the number of houses with trees now impaled through them. Areas such as Medowie, Metford, Bulahdelah, Allworth, Booral, up through to Gloucester and Stroud—all those areas—have been severely affected. Also, the fences are down in a lot of the paddocks. As you would know yourself from your own electorate, Mr Speaker, a lot of the paddocks that front the highways have trees as windbreaks along the fence lines. As they have come down, they have taken the fences out. So, in conjunction with the windy and wet weather up there, we also have cattle straying out onto the roads.Today as I took off from Williamtown and came back down to Canberra I saw the ships off Newcastle all straining at their anchors, as the winds are gusting through there just below hurricane level. The ferries have also been cancelled in Newcastle.One thing I must take the time and opportunity to do is to praise the work of the people in the SESs, the fire brigade, the ambulance, the police—all of the community services that have come together to try to assemble some level of order in the community. The other thing we are seeing is a massive draw down not only on the emergency services but on the emergency provisions available throughout the community.As I drove home from Gloucester last night through the Bucketts Way, I had to stop eight times to wait or to help clear trees that had gone down across the road. A trip home that is normally an hour took something like 2½ hours. Not only was the Bucketts Way closed last night but also the Pacific Highway was blocked at Twelve Mile Creek, where a tree had come down across a bridge. It has been an expensive drain on the local emergency services.This afternoon I spoke to Kristey Atkins of 2HD to obtain an update. The electricity is still not on in around a third of the electorate. One of the particular problems is at Bulahdelah, where the sewerage system is driven electrically. Without the electricity, the call is going out for people to restrict the amount of flushing in toilets in order to avoid loading up the sewerage system. We do not want to see a repeat of Wallis Lake, where infections and diseases have been spread out into the water system.I ask people tonight, as they go home and sit in front of their warm fire, to spare a thought for these people. The full extent of this will not be known for many days yet. The winds are not due to abate until tomorrow some time. But it has been an extremely difficult time for the people in the whole of the Hunter, the lower Hunter and the upper Hunter areas. I ask that this House pay consideration to these people.535519:32:005355Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The Australian dream of owning a family home seems to be under threat, if the findings of a recent report of the Australian Institute of Family Studies is correct. In the report entitled Social polarisation and housing careers , prepared by Ian Winter and Wendy Stone, it states that low paid, low skilled workers who had not entered home ownership by the age of 35 are likely to be locked out forever. This lockout of low income people from home ownership would represent a dramatic change in Australia's traditional democratic spread of home ownership. A high proportion of low income earners had been able to buy homes and become property investors in the past.The report found, for example, that in 1996 similar proportions of labourers and professionals were owner-occupiers or property investors. People from across the occupational and income spectrum were evenly represented among those paying off a home or renting privately. The report shows that the rental market has been a stepping stone to home ownership.Government policies of cheap first home owner loans, regulation of interest rates and generous assistance to public tenants had eased the road to home ownership for low income Australians. Employment security, particularly for low and middle income people, gave them the confidence to invest in the future. But this future now looks bleaker for young people on low incomes who want to own a home. Home ownership rates have fallen to their lowest level since 1954, an indication that fewer people were entering the market.The issue of employment security will have a major impact on young people investing in a family home. Full-time employment, as a proportion of the working population, is now about 20 per cent lower than in the mid-1970s. Other employment trends such as the consistently high level of underemployment, with the decline in full-time employment and an increase in part-time employment, are going to have a major impact on long-term home ownership.The report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies addresses the value of home ownership as a social and economic equaliser. In the introduction, the report says:Private saving for home ownership over the life course led to low housing costs in retirement and an increased likelihood of avoiding poverty.Reduced poverty in retirement and the broad social base to home ownership have, overall, meant greater economic equality. There is now evidence that this great Australian dream is fading. Reference is made to press reports in the Age of April:The greater number of households moving out of rather than into home ownership challenges a long tradition of households achieving home ownership at a relatively young age after a period of renting and then remaining owners for life.The increase in two-income families can be attributed to the increase in the price of the family home. The report states:The home ownership rate has been sustained despite a decline in affordability, due to the rise of the two-income households. Through the 1970s and 1980s real house prices, on average, rose more rapidly than average earnings. Consequently, it became necessary for a household to have two income earners to gain access to home ownership.In Australia, the vast majority of single income households have been gradually priced out of the market since the 1970s by rising interest rates and rising unemployment. The report highlights how home ownership has influenced the Australian way of life from being the point at which couples decide to have children through to inheritance left to family members, as well as providing equal social rewards for people on various levels of income.Home ownership has become such a sacred cow in Australian society that any suggestion by governments that home owners should have to sell their family home to meet other living arrangements, such as nursing home fees, was universally condemned by the Australian public.The issue of the private rental sector is also addressed in this report. The assumption has been that private rental was used as a short-term transitional housing arrangement. The report indicates that this is not now the case, with some 40 per cent of householders in the private rental sector having rented continuously for more than 10 years. A high proportion of households in this market suffer difficulties, with a high proportion of their disposable income being spent on rent payments.These points suggest that a large number of households are trapped in the private rental market by the proportionally high rent payments, and therefore lack the ability to save for the deposit needed to purchase a family home. The additional complaints that I have received in my electorate are that newer developing areas lack community services such as parks et cetera to cater for young families. This means that governments need to look more closely at accommodation and living arrangements for young, low income married couples. (Time expired)535619:37:005356Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I wish to draw the attention of the House to a worthy Rotary project in my electorate of Hughes which is aimed at giving positive assistance to young families where mothers may be suffering from anxiety, stress or depression, including postnatal depression. As a member of Sylvania Rotary Club in district 9750, I am proud to have been associated with this special project aimed at supporting mothers and young children in highly stressed families. The project is the brainchild of an eminent Sydney child psychiatrist, Dr Clarrie Gluskie, who is a past District Governor and chairman of the Australian Rotary Health Research Fund Committee.Established under the auspices of this committee, the Hope for the Children Foundation was set up to raise funds in support of mothers and children through a weekly program of home visits by trained volunteers. Under the structure of the foundation, the Sutherland Family Network was created as the operational unit of the foundation. The Sutherland Family Network is managed by a committee of Rotarians, presently chaired by Mrs Lorna Stone, state member for Sutherland. It has now been operating for almost four years and to date has given positive support to 75 families. Many of the volunteers who visit these families under the duress of stress or depression are themselves mothers who have already raised their own families and enjoyed the experience. It is a real case of the women in our community helping other women at a time of need.Often many of our volunteer women are Rotarians themselves or wives of Rotarians, and many of our first group of volunteers were from the Sutherland and Port Hacking Inner Wheel Clubs. Mrs Tineke Lovius, Mrs Elizabeth Weber, Mrs Jenny Dalton, wife of our current District Governor, Mr Jack Dalton, and Mrs Trudy Murphy were conspicuous in this group. Today there are over 50 volunteers working in the Sutherland Family Network drawn from all facets of the community. Many of the volunteer mothers and grandmothers are keen to continue making a significant contribution to the quality of life in their own neighbourhoods. These dedicated women all receive special training before starting with families. They are under the excellent professional supervision of Mrs Luba Monro who constantly inspires and supports her team of volunteers.Families in need of support are identified by referral to the network by the local early childhood centres, by medical practitioners, the maternity wards at local hospitals and other community organisations. The family network's coordinator, Mrs Monro, then assesses the families that have been referred to her and carefully matches them with the appropriate volunteer. Some of the families may have been stressed for a long time and some parents and children often need treatment or help from doctors and other health professionals, even for psychiatric illnesses.The women volunteers provide friendship and help with parenting, giving commonsense suggestions on everyday issues and problems that arise when a new baby comes into the family. They also give information and help with access to child care, education, health and social services. Their support helps limit the amount of stress within the family unit and our research shows that this is greatly appreciated. In other words, our Sutherland Family Network volunteers in effect mother the mothers. They do not mother the babies. They provide a sense of the old-fashioned extended family support for the mothers at a time of great emotional need.Funding for the project is always an ongoing problem and it mainly comes from Rotary clubs. Past President of the Sutherland Civic Club Stan Nurthen has been instrumental in gaining corporate sponsorship from Burmah Fuels, Coca-Cola Amatil and British Airways. The foundation is grateful for their kindness and financial support. The project has proved to be so successful in the Sutherland shire that new networks have been set up in the city of Sydney and also in the St George district with the active support of Maria Ficarra, state member for Georges River.The fine work of the Hope for the Children Foundation and the Sutherland Family Network has attracted the patronage of the retired Children's Court magistrate and author, Mrs Barbara Holborow, a woman held in respect and warm affection for her work with troubled children. With experience gained from dealing with children from dysfunctional families in the courts, Mrs Holborow recognises the value in the support programs offered by the network. The highly regarded and celebrated actress and writer Rachel Ward has also joined the foundation as an ambassa dor and is actively fundraising and promoting its work. Her creative event Aussies Without Cossies, featuring Bryan Brown and other famous Australian male identities, promises to be the fundraising event of 1998.Appropriate evaluation of the service has been undertaken by family health professor Lesley Barclay at the University of Technology in Sydney. The results are very positive. Those families who have been supported are most appreciative of the help given by the volunteers and speak enthusiastically of the difference made to their lives by having someone to talk to, someone who especially cares about them. A local doctor commented to Dr Clarrie Gluskie:I am reluctant to say this, Clarrie, because I know you are a psychiatrist, but the families supported by your volunteers are doing better than the ones I have sent to the psychiatrist.Dr Clarrie Gluskie agrees and says that this is generally true, because most stressed and depressed mothers do not need drugs or specialist counselling; they just need the warm personal support and practical help that other caring women can provide. This is how Hope for the Children's family networks are making a real difference for stressed families and giving hope to the children. (Time expired)535819:42:005358Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—I want to make it clear that I am a great supporter of development projects. I will be happy to give the government a list of development projects that would really benefit Australia. What I object to is what I call the cargo cult mentality which is very much in the fore with this rail link from Melbourne to Darwin. If you are going to embark on an expense of this sort, you really have to have your market sorted out beforehand, not afterwards. There is some belief that if you build the railway the business will follow. I believe that cannot happen.What is really happening here is that the National Party and the Liberal Party, desperate to regain the country vote, are offering country people a myth, a chimera. People will say, `Oh, the government's looking at it and they think it is going to help.' It will not help. They are going to conduct a survey. The private sector will not undertake that without government guarantees or unless we give them access to large chunks of land, and that will certainly be opposed very strongly. The other interesting thing is this: the great architect of this was Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee. He is the man who did all the work on it. He is the man who did all the figures. He said himself that it should be subjected to all due process; it should be analysed for viability before announcements are made. The government has no intention of seeing this through to fruition. It is simply a stunt. If it does come to fruition, it will be an enormous burden on the taxpayer. The government knows that, but in the short term it can fool the people in rural Australia, who are in desperate need of assistance. What people in rural Australia need is something done about commodity prices and finance, which brings me to the actions of our Treasurer (Mr Costello). It seems that neither our Treasurer nor One Nation have any idea how you operate two per cent finance. I am not necessarily advocating two per cent finance but to say it cannot be done is absolute nonsense. I notice today that the Victorian government is offering four per cent finance to farmers in Gippsland. That is two per cent above inflation, and I think that is quite justifiable.But we will do it this way, and this policy was clearly taken from the policy of Australia First. We said that we would allocate out of the budget a sum of money to a body which we would set up as a new development bank. We would get a banking license and allow it to go out and use the same strategy other banks do to lend money. I believe that $100 million could very easily become a billion dollars. What is surprising about this? We are giving $1.2 billion to the Indigenous Land Fund. This money could be made available at basically any interest rate which the bank decided.The original charter of the development bank was to invest in the good sense and hard work of the Australian people without full regard to security. Clearly it can be done. In 1970, Sir Robert Sparkes was advocating just this sort of thing for the rural sector. In the days of the Asian meltdown, our Treasurer told us that it would not affect Australia because he had got the fundamentals right in the Australian economy. When he stood at the dispatch box and said that, I thought to myself, `That is an extremely stupid thing to say'—and it was. Now he says that it is going to affect us, and he actually has the audacity to say that he has been telling everyone all along that it is going to affect us. That is not what he said initially—he said that it would not affect us at all.A bank lending money to the rural sector at reasonable interest rates is very important. The administration cost of a loan is between one and two per cent. Obviously, if you are fractional reserve banking, you can make those loans available, and I suggest that if projects have a community value then it is good sense to make money available at that sort of interest rate to get the economy going. So much could be done in Australia if we did that sort of thing.I would like to invoke Mr Greenspan. He has made it quite clear in some of his speeches that this sort of thing can be done, and he says that it is always a matter for judgment how far you go with it. That is the truth. If this money is put into constructive purposes, it can only benefit the nation. That is something that our Treasurer does not seem to understand, but I fear that there are lots of other things that he does not understand.If you wanted to get produce into Asia quickly, it would be far more economical for the government to purchase or agree to the construction of two high-speed aluminium boats of double the present tonnage. That would get the produce to Asia in the same time as it would take using the proposed railway, without that enormous capital gamble. It would also benefit Tasmania and South Australia, two states which are premier in the world in this sort of construction, which are facing a very tight situation. (Time expired)535919:47:005359Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—I rise tonight to create an awareness in our community and to promote intelligent and responsible thought and downright commonsense on an issue that has the potential not only to attack but also to destroy the social fabric of Australian society. It is time to spare a thought for what sort of society we want to live in. Do we want a society built on a platform of insecurity, uncertainty, despair and hatred of others, or one of caring, compassion and respect?It is Australian to help your mate if he is in a fight and to stand beside and protect those who are in need, disadvantaged or oppressed. With this in mind, there are many popular statements one could make to promote oneself in today's turbulent political environment. Tonight I send a challenge to those who pick up on those popular statements, and I ask the people out there: is what they are saying true? Are the statements informed and factual, or are they just saying what some of us want to hear?We are one, but we are many. This one-liner certainly deserves a mention. We are Australians—but what is an Australian? Are we not a conglomerate of people from different nations drawn together on this patch of dirt we call Australia? We are not a race of people, but we have developed into a very patriotic society, and it is this patriotism that makes us all proud. Australia is a great place to live. To many other countries in the world, Australia has a democratic and civilised society which is the envy of many nations in the region. That is why we attract so many immigrants and refugees from poverty-stricken countries and war-torn areas around the world.We have some of the best beaches that anyone has ever sunbathed on and a climate that is beautiful one day and perfect the next, but the main reason people want to live in Australia is that it is a multicultural society. No other country in the world has such a diversity of cultures. People living, working, studying and touring here are from all corners of the globe and they are from different religious denominations. They are all living here in peace. To most people coming to this country, that is a wonderful experience. If you had lived in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or China in the past few decades, you would have witnessed fellow country men and women killing each other for one fanatical reason or another.As far as I am concerned, there is no sensible reason why anyone would want to kill another person, let alone a brother, yet all over the world brothers and sisters are killing their own people. It is not surprising that the peaceful climes of Australia would be attractive to people who in their own country are dead scared to even leave their homes to go shopping. In my opinion, Australia is a world leader in multiculturalism, and clearly demonstrates to the rest of the world how all these cultures and religions can live together harmoniously. We should be extremely proud of that fact.I am appalled when I hear people from other countries branding us as racists just because we have a few right-wing bigots who are given the media space to air their disjointed views. These countries' policies on multiculturalism are a mere shadow of what we have enshrined in law and practice. Australia's inhabitants have relocated here from other countries at one time or another, even the Aborigines, so it is important to remember that we are all dinky-di Australians, and government policy should reflect that. There should not be separate departments for one race or another. There should not be special funding for one group of people or another; there should only be one people—and they are called Australians.536019:51:005360McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I rise to express concern about the abandonment of industrial relations policy in Australia. That has been demonstrated most profoundly by the recent waterfront dispute.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—No, we have got a great policy. Where have you been?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—If we analyse what the member who interjected says is the government's policy, we can see that it is a disgrace. What is completely absent from the equation is the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has performed a uniquely Australian role in providing expert and objective advice in an area often wrought by intense conflict and frequently great complexity. In an age where efficiency is often achieved by requiring workers to give up hard fought for conditions, obviously there is going to be an intensity of feeling and obviously it is going to be a difficult job.The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has performed a uniquely Australian function in achieving significant results over the years. It has been entirely absent from major disputes since this government came to office. What we have is the law of the jungle. We saw today a note by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) on 19 April 1997 that he had read a document proposing the mass sackings of waterside workers in May this year. That was clear evidence of a conspiracy. Indeed, the suggestion made in parliament today was that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was involved in that conspiracy to terminate the employment of 1,400 workers because of their union membership. This was to happen in many ports where they were achieving standards of world renown.To return to the earlier interjection, this is the government's sole industrial relations policy. Frank Costigan wrote a very impressive article on 23 April this year. He likened what was going on in the Patrick restructuring to what was occurring in the bottom of the harbour days. He said that those extraordinary steps had been taken without any attempt by the government or the group of companies to ascertain precisely the true extent of waterfront reform that had been achieved over the past decade, without investigating alleged rorts and without ascertaining the true state of affairs. There are arguments that can be tested in a rational, sensible environment, with people giving their evidence and being cross-examined and tested.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—That has been done.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The interjector might like to tell the House why the government did not appear before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to discuss waterfront reform when the matter was listed on 4 February 1998.The government has turned its back on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It has turned its back on the rule of law determining all aspects of Australian society, including the very important area of industrial relations, which is essential to Australia's economy. I do not know how the minister will possibly explain, for instance, the repeal of section 170QK of the act, which enabled the commission to order parties in an industrial dispute to bargain in good faith. They have emasculated the powers of the commission to bring parties together and sit down and talk sensibly. It is a complete and utter abandonment of the field of rationality when it comes to progressing such a vitally important part of human endeavour.Nothing constructive has ever been achieved for any nation by fanatics or zealots. Any meaningful achievements in any field of human endeavour have only ever been achieved through reasoned, balanced and cooperative approaches with Australians acting with Australians for a common purpose and working together to achieve reform. This fanatical, zealous, illegal approach is the government's response to industrial relations. What is required is restoring the rule of law, not these illegal activities that have quite clearly been brought out in the parliament today.536119:56:005361Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—Mr Speaker, you will recall a couple of weeks ago that you allowed me to speak for the last 30 seconds of the adjournment debate to bring to the House's attention the fact that one of my constituents was attempting to break the world record for running the Birdsville Track. It is my very great pleasure to report to the parliament that he succeeded in his task in no uncertain terms. Mr Gary Parsons completed the Birdsville Track on the weekend of 13 June. He broke the record by 18 hours and 26 minutes.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—How long did he take altogether?2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—The old record was four days, three hours and 19 minutes. Take 18 hours off that and you get the record. To put it into perspective, on day one he travelled 150 kilometres. On day two, he travelled 122 kilometres, apparently into a very severe head wind. But he pushed on. On day three, he travelled 105 kilometres. On day four, he travelled 135 kilometres. On the last day, he ran 19 hours non-stop. It really does make the mind boggle. The fact is that he shows that great Australian fighting spirit.A good friend of his, support team member and sponsor, Jim Johnson, from our local pharmacy, said to me tonight when I was speaking to him on the phone that anything is possible when you see a man running along with his toenails coming off because of the pain and obviously the anxiety that he had in wanting to complete this task. He said, `He would have one hour's sleep and, before we could get going, he would be off and running, completing four or five kilometres.' It really makes one think what is possible.What does someone do having run the 1,000-kilometre races and now holding the world record for the Birdsville Track? His next light activity is to take on the six-day race held in Victoria against the world's best. He hopes to also put in a very good performance there. If that is not enough, he then intends to take on the Simpson Desert. What drives Mr Gary Parsons?UK6THOMSONMr Kelvin Thomson—Is the train track going through there?2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Yes, there is a train track going through there. It is the Darwin to Adelaide track.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—He had better do it soon or he won't be able to.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—He will have to watch for the trains as he goes by. Gary has been, I am sure, inspired by another great Queenslander and member from Caboolture, Ron Grant, who also ran around Australia. I believe that it is Gary Parsons's great ambition, having completed the Birdsville Track in record time and having decided to compete and no doubt win the six-day race in Victoria and then take on the Simpson desert, to take a stroll around Australia next year. It is really an incredible feat. It is some 14,000 kilometres, and he will have to do it in eight-odd months.I rise tonight not just to highlight what this man has achieved because, quite frankly, he has not had any media exposure. He has done it to challenge himself and to show other Australians what can be achieved if you simply put your mind to the task. It is not about being a great athlete; it is about having mind over matter and having a determination and steely courage to complete such events.I congratulate him and Jim Johnson, who has seen fit to sponsor Gary and to work with him. As he said, it was one of the most inspirational things he has ever been involved with. Other Queenslanders and people from Caboolture have been involved, including Phoenix Caravans; I acknowledge their efforts. On behalf of this parliament, I say, `Gary, well done.' We wish you all the best in the ultra-marathon events that you will take on in the near future. I am sure that you will continue to do Caboolture very proud.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I desire that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate may continue.536220:00:005362Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—A number of speakers in tonight's adjournment debate have mentioned the One Nation Party. I think it is important to draw a distinction between the followers of One Nation, many of whom are decent, ordinary Australians, and the leadership of One Nation, which comprises people who are little better than political vandals.I think it is important that every Australian knows the undemocratic structure of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. The member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) preaches democracy but she does not practise it, because One Nation is not a political party but a company. It is not a democracy, but a business. It does not have thousands of members; it just has three directors. The best you can say for this kind of structure is that it is democratic centralism like the politburo of the old Soviet Union.The truth is that inside One Nation there is a dictatorship of just three people. It is bad enough that 12.5 per cent of all the money collected by One Nation goes straight into the pocket of David Ettridge. It is bad enough that $500,000 of taxpayers' money to which One Nation is entitled because of the Queensland election result is going into the hands of just three people. But the worst thing is that the member for Oxley has not sought to explain or justify this fundamentally undemocratic and un-Australian practice to the parliament or to the Australian public.I would like to read from the memorandum and articles of association of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Ltd. They include provisions:. . . to establish and support funds, trusts and conveniences calculated to benefit employees or past employees of the company or dependants or connections of any such persons and to grant pensions and allowances.It goes on:. . . to take such steps by personal or written appeals, public meetings or otherwise as may, from time to time, be deemed expedient for the purpose of procuring contributions to the funds of the company in the shape of donations, annual subscriptions or otherwise.I am not a lawyer, but I think that means that the directors of One Nation can do virtually anything they like with the $500,000 of taxpayers' money that they will be getting under the public funding of elections provisions.I have some questions for the member for Oxley and these are questions which I believe her own supporters would want her to answer. Firstly, how much money does David Ettridge stand to make as One Nation's commission agent? Secondly, is One Nation paying any money to David Oldfield on top of the salary, overtime and travel allowance paid to him by the Commonwealth? Thirdly, how could David Oldfield, while a staffer for the federal member for Oxley, be One Nation's Queensland state campaign director? And did Oldfield take leave without pay for the duration of the campaign?I think the member for Oxley needs to answer these questions. She needs to answer them herself. She cannot send David Oldfield out to do it for her, or else people will start to ask the big question of One Nation, that is, who runs Pauline Hanson's One Nation? Is it the member for Oxley or has she become simply the puppet of David Oldfield?It cannot have escaped the member for Oxley's attention that, if she is just one MP in this House while David Oldfield and his cronies hold the balance of power in the Senate, her party will have become, in fact and in name, David Oldfield's One Nation.In conclusion, I want to draw to the attention of the House a report in today's Sydney Morning Herald about what happened to the One Nation candidate in the Queensland state seat of Burleigh. This candidate intended to direct his preferences to the National Party. He was rung by David Oldfield and told by Oldfield that he could not direct his preferences to the National Party. The candidate then told Oldfield that he had written permission from One Nation to direct preferences where he wished. There was a furious argument, as a result of which two heavies arrived and trashed this candidate's office. As the paper says:Later that day, two "heavies" arrived. "They trashed the front of the office, throwing papers around. . . They shut the door. . . and were slamming fists on the table. It was very intimidating stand-over stuff."And it goes without saying that that particular candidate, notwithstanding the hundreds of dollars of his own money that he put towards his campaign, notwithstanding his efforts to contest that seat, will be receiving none of the $500,000 to which One Nation is entitled. (Extension of time granted)But I return to the fundamental question and I pose it in the light of this ugly incident inside the One Nation Party: who is in charge of One Nation? Is it the member for Oxley, is it David Oldfield, or has it become a bunch of Brownshirts? Because that is the challenge facing Australia at the moment—to work out what is really going on in this rogue party. If, as I suspect, it is David Oldfield and some very unusual types who are behind One Nation, Australia faces very big problems.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning.20:06:005363House adjourned at 8.06 p.m.Notices5363The following notices were given:Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996, and for related purposes.Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr Miles to present a bill for an act to amend the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994, and for related purposes.Documents5363The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 24 June 1998:Child Care Act—Determination 1998 Child Care (Breach of Conditions of Eligibility).Directions—Childcare Assistance Immunisation Requirements Nos. IMCA/12G/98/1, IMCA/12G/98/2.Guidelines—1998—Childcare Assistance (Fee Relief) No. CA/12A/98/1.Child Care (Eligible Child Care Centres) Amendment (No. 1).Child Care (New Allocations).Child Care (Other Places-Allocations).Childcare Rebate Act—Determination 1998 Childcare Rebate (Exempt Persons) Amendment (No. 1).Directions—Childcare Rebate Immunisation Requirements Nos. IMCR/39A/98/1, IMCR/39A/ 98/2.Corporations Act—Accounting standard No. AASB 1004.Defence Act—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations 1998 Nos. 18, 19.Financial Management and Accountability Act—Determination to establish a component of the Reserved Money Fund 24 June 1998.Fisheries Management Act—Plan of management No. SET 01.National Health Act—Declarations 1998 Nos. PB 10, PB 11, PB 12.National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act—Pulu Keeling National Park—Comments on representations received by Parks Australia on the proposed plan of management.Plan of management. Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. SESROB 43, SESROB 44, SESROB 45, SESROB 46, SESROB 47, SESROB 48, SESROB 49, SESROB 50, SESROB 51, SESROB 52.Superannuation Act 1976—Determination—Superannuation (CSS) Employer Component Payment (Telstra Superannuation Scheme) No. 4.Answers to Questions in Writing5365The following answers to questions were circulated:5365(Question No. 2619)26195365McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) How many failures to comply with air traffic control clearances have occurred at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (a) in the six months before the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) was implemented and (b) since the (i) first and (ii) second stages of implementation of LTOP.(2) What reasons did pilots provide for failing to comply.5365Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Airservices Australia has advised that for the period 4 February 1997 to 3 August 1997 there were 186 instances of pilots failing to comply with air traffic control clearances or requirements.(1) (b) (i) Airservices Australia has advised that for the period 4 August 1997 to 3 December 1997 there were 133 instances of failure to comply with air traffic control clearances or requirements.(1) (b) (ii) Airservices Australia has advised that for the period 4 December 1997 to 30 April 1998 there were 173 instances of failure to comply with air traffic control clearances or requirements.(2) The above instances of non-compliance cover matters such as pilot violations of controlled airspace, failure to maintain assigned altitudes and failure to comply with the requirements of Standard Arrival Routes (STARS) or Standard Instrument Departures (SID's). The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation is conducting an ongoing study of compliance incidents to determine if any particular trends emerge.5365(Question No. 2686)26865365Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Further to his answers to questions Nos. 2214 (Hansard , 20 October 1997, page 9340) and 2415 (Hansard , 17 November 1997, page 10607) concerning allegations of produce left rotting on wharves because of industrial action, is he able to provide any evidence to support the allegations. (2) Is he able to identify public statements by port users, producer organisations, port authorities or stevedoring companies referring to occurrences.(3) Will he arrange a confidential briefing for the Shadow Minister for Transport in which evidence is provided with an undertaking that it would not be disclosed to another person.5365Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) I refer the honourable member to my answers to questions Nos. 2214 on 20 October 1997 and 2415 on 17 November 1997 (which provide a full answer to these questions). In addition, the honourable member may be aware that ABC television news on 21 April 1998 reported the experience of an agricultural producer whose citrus exports were rotting on Melbourne's East Swanson dock as a result of the activities—illegal pickets in this case, supported by the Labor Opposition—of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).The honourable member may also be aware of press reports on 28 May 1998 of expected spoilage of cargo on the container vessel Columbus Canada as a result of delays caused by industrial action by members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in the US in support of the MUA. The ILWU refused to unload cargo from the Columbus Canada which had been loaded by non-union labour in Australia and, after being kept waiting for 16 days outside the Port of Los Angeles, the ship was forced to sail back to New Zealand to be reloaded by union labour before returning to North America to deliver its cargo. The Government understands that some of the vessel's cargo of wheat gluten, meat and dairy products has perished and that some will perish or be downgraded in quality.(3) As the honourable member is very well aware, the Government does not have the permission of affected companies to publicly outline or otherwise disclose such cases. These companies have suffered, and continue to suffer, under inefficient waterfront practices and have asked that their cases not be disclosed, either publicly or privately.Also, in providing information about the impact of the recent industrial disruption on the waterfront, many businesses have indicated either directly or to their employer associations a reluctance to be named, for fear of reprisals. Such reports only serve to harden my resolve to respect their wishes that their cases not be disclosed. 5366(Question No. 2737)27375366Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:Is he able to say whether the US Technical Commission for Aeronautics determined that at least 8 conditions would have to occur simultaneously for portable electronic devices to affect aircraft communications and navigation equipment; if so, what are the 8 conditions.5366Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority that Special Committee SC-156 of RTCA Incorporated, formerly known as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, identified in a 1988 report RTCA/DO-199—Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard eight conditions that would have to be met simultaneously for aircraft receivers to experience interference. The following are the eight conditions:1. A portable device is radiating over the limit at which receiver disruption can occur.2. A portable device is located in worst-case position in aircraft cabin.3. A portable device is oriented to maximum peak radiation for minimum path loss (ie normally out the window).4. Reflection paths offered by objects outside the aircraft (ie wing, empennage, control surfaces etc) provide an additive route for electromagnetic interference transmission, creating a worst-case path loss between location of passenger-operated device and antenna of receiver being interfered with.5. The frequency of emission from the portable device falls within the aircraft receiver system operational frequency band.6. The frequency of emission from the portable device falls within the receiver pass band.7. The characteristic of emission is suitable to cause receiver disruption, which may or may not be observable by the flight crew.8. A receiver system is operating at near its minimum signal level.These multiple conditions were verified by tests conducted by the United States Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center on two early technology aircraft (Boeing 727 and Convair 580) using portable device utilising mid 80s technology. The devices tested did not use digital technology and the aircraft used do not represent today's aircraft with digital and fly-by-wire technology. Additionally, the only system tested for interference was the very high frequency omnidirectional radio range navigation system.A subsequent RTCA special committee SC-177, issued report RTCA/DO-233—Portable Electronic Devices Carried on Board Aircraft on 20 August 1996. This report, although not fully supporting the earlier SC-156 conclusions, did conclude that multiple independent conditions must be present to enable interference to occur. The report, however, did not identify the individual conditions.5366(Question No. 2858)28585366Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:(1) Did the Government hire Cosway Australia Pty Ltd to produce an advertising campaign related to the proposed airport at Badgerys Creek; if so, (a)what is the contract worth, (b) what forms of media will be used in the campaign, (c) when was the contract signed, (d) why is the campaign necessary, (e) when will the campaign be completed, (f) who are the persons responsible for designing the campaign and (g) who are the directors of Cosway Australia Pty Ltd.(2) Did he decide to use Cosway for the campaign; if so, why.(3) Were other agencies considered for the campaign; if not, why not; if so, (a) which agencies were considered and (b) what were their quotes.(4) Has the Government used Cosway previously; if so, in each case, (a) when, (b) for what project and (c) what sum did the Government pay.5366Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government has selected Cosway Australia Pty Ltd to develop and implement a public awareness program for the second Sydney airport.(a) The contract for this consultancy is based upon a contract price of up to $250,000.(b) The forms of media to be used will be determined according to the circumstances applying to particular issues and judgements about how information on those issues might be communicated most effectively.(c) The contract between Cosway Australia Pty Ltd and the Department of Transport and Regional Development was signed on 3 June 1998. (d) The public awareness program is designed to balance the public debate through the provision of factual material and the correction of any inaccuracies in the media.(e) The contract terminates on 31 December 1998.(f) The contract requires the consultant to develop a strategy for consideration by the Department of Transport and Regional Development.(g) The directors of Cosway Australia Pty Ltd are Mr Mark Rudder and Mr John Frey.(2) and (3) Six consultancy firms were invited to tender for the contract and four of those submitted tenders. Tenderers were invited to submit proposals for a program of activity involving expenditure of around $250,000.Two tenders were assessed by a selection panel as being superior proposals and were subsequently put forward to the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC) for selection of a preferred tenderer.The MCGC chose Cosway Australia Pty Ltd and a contract was subsequently signed with this firm.(4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Finance and Administration.5367(Question No. 2936)29365367Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Attorney-General, 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.5367Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as followsI am advised by my department and agencies within the portfolio of the following details in relation to funding allocated to the Oxley electorate:Attorney-General's DepartmentFamily Relationships Services ProgramThe table below summarises the funding allocated to organisations through the Family Relationships Services Program to provide marriage and relationship education and counselling in the electorate of Oxley, in 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99:1996-971997-981998-99Relationships Australia Queensland (Ipswich)* Family & Relationship Counselling$56,000$56,980$57,890Kinections (Ipswich) Marriage & Relationship Counselling$43,000$44,000$44,800* The figures provided are a pro-rata calculation of the total funding provided by Relationships Australia (Brisbane), based on the counselling hours conducted through the Ipswich office.In addition, Centacare Brisbane received funding totalling $152,374 in 1996-97, $162,300 in 1997-98, from which funds were provided to the Oxley electorate for family relationships services 1 day per week. Centacare Brisbane's funding allocation for 1998-99 is $ 164*897.Legal Aid ProgramThe Commonwealth Legal Aid program provides funds to Legal Aid (Queensland). These funds are then used by Legal Aid (Queensland) to provide legal aid services in Commonwealth matters acrossQueensland. While it is not possible to identify how much of the funding was provided to the Oxley electorate, some funds would have gone to private practitioners to provide services in the electorate. Legal Aid (Queensland) also has a number of regional offices established throughout Queensland. For the electoral division of Oxley, the closest regional office is in Ipswich.The table below summarises the total Commonwealth funding allocated to Legal Aid (Queensland) in 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99:1996-971997-981998$19,821,357$18,574,498$18,000,0005368(Question No. 2984)29845368Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 14 May 1998:(1) Has he been involved in the continuing dispute at the Gordonstone Mine in Central Queensland which is operated by Gordonstone Coal Management Pty Ltd (GCM) and owned by Atlantic Richfield Oil Company (ARCO).(2) Did ARCO sack all its Gordonstone workforce and attempt to replace it with a new workforce.(3) Did the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union take the dispute to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC); if so, did the AIRC (a) find that the dismissals were a provocative and unnecessary attempt to avoid the seniority provision in the enterprise agreement governing the reduction of hands at the mine and (b) note that (i) until mid-1996 Gordonstone coal miners had achieved record production levels for which the company had rewarded them and (ii) the declining performance of the mine from late 1996 was the result of the GCM's industrial relations strategy which was aimed at avoiding the provisions of the enterprise agreement.(4) If he has not been involved in the dispute will he (a) urge ARCO to reemploy its sacked workforce immediately and (b) advise it that provocative and unnecessary assaults on the industrial conditions of Australian workers will not be tolerated.5368Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) On 1 October 1997, Gordonstone Coal Management Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of ARCO Coal Australia Inc, retrenched all of its 312 production and engineering employees and placed the mine on an indefinite care and maintenance program.I am advised that the company advertised for 30 temporary positions to undertake a limited trial production of new work practices in November 1997. However, it did not proceed with this step in light of the decision by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to make an interim award in relation to the recruitment of its former employees.(3) The CFMEU made applications to the AIRC on behalf of 282 of the former employees under s170CE(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 claiming unfair termination of employment.(a) On 2 February 1998, Hingley C decided that the termination of the seven `representative' employees was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The Commissioner stated that "the decision to terminate, to avoid LIFO [last on first off] obligations was provocative and unnecessary given that the Enterprise Agreement provided alternatives by agreement and, in clause 21, a Problem Resolution Procedure with ultimate referral to the Commission for determination, and in any event it had a nominal expiry date of April 1998".(b) (i) In his decision, Hingley C stated that "over a couple of years up until May 1996, [Gordonstone Coal Management] rewarded employees with stickers, caps and shirts inscribed with messages and logos and a bonus system, recognising Australian record production levels".(ii)In his decision, Hingley C also stated that, by August 1996, "industrial relationships appear to have gone into a fatal and irreconcilable decline and as a consequence production, safety levels and productivity were detrimentally affected".(4) (a) Decisions about whether or not to recruit employees and how many to recruit are matters for the owners and operators of the mine.(b) I expect all employers, employees and unions to comply with all relevant laws, including the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and to comply with decisions of tribunals made pursuant to the law.