1998-06-253817REPS536901998-06-25Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5369r5545369Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.536909:31:005369Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The government is revising the Navigation Act 1912 to bring it up to date and into line with practices that are relevant to the operation of a modern and efficient shipping industry. This is being done in two stages. Stage one, which is to be implemented through the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 now before the House, is aimed at removing employment related provisions in the act, which are inconsistent with the Workplace Relations Act 1996 and the concept of company employment. Stage two will involve a comprehensive rewrite of the act to make it a more efficient and effective regulatory tool.The Navigation Act has its origins in the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The employment related provisions were originally intended to cover situations where the majority of the crew of a ship were employed on a casual basis, with crew contracted to serve on a particular ship for a particular voyage. At the end of the voyage, the crew was paid off, with the employer having no further commitment regarding the employment of individual crew members. With the shift to company employment, a number of provisions in the Navigation Act are no longer relevant.There are a number of provisions still contained in the Navigation Act that are more in tune with ships under sail. For example, one of the sections in the act provides that the `receiver of wreck', who is a government official, may for the purpose of protecting a ship that has been wrecked use force, including shooting, for the suppression of plundering, disorder or obstruction and may command all persons present to assist him in so doing. If this results in people being killed, the receiver of wreck is not liable to any punishment or to pay any damages.Another example of an outdated provision is one contained in section 50 which grants seamen who have to spend some time ashore awaiting passage to their home port an entitlement of at least of two dollars per day for victualling and accommodation. Seafarers could well have legitimate grounds for complaint if a shipowner were only to pay this minimum amount. It is hard to imagine why provisions of this kind should remain in the Navigation Act. In fact, with the Workplace Relations Act now in force, there is no need for these archaic and inappropriate employment provisions to be covered in an act that is principally intended to regulate maritime safety and control ship sourced pollution.The Workplace Relations Act was introduced for the specific purpose of giving employers and their employees a new opportunity to make employment arrangements best suited to the needs of their enterprises or workplaces. That act is based on principles which support more direct and productive workplace relations and opens the way for more flexible working arrangements suited to the changing ways Australians are working. The main difference between the Navigation Act and the Workplace Relations Act is that the Navigation Act is highly prescriptive and applies industry wide whereas the Workplace Relations Act provides flexibility for employment arrangements to be determined at the enterprise level in a manner that suits the business of individual employers.Examples of the over-prescriptive employment conditions in the act which are no longer appropriate include:. over 30 separate provisions prescribing details of how seafarers are to be engaged and discharged from individual ships;. over 35 provisions prescribing how wages are to be paid to seafarers;. and an industry wide arrangement, through the Marine Council, for assessing the suitability of seafarers for employment in the industry.With this in mind, the main objectives of the stage one amendments contained in this bill are to remove outdated and inappropriate legislative requirements and, as far as practicable, bring legislation applying to seafarers into line with that applying to employees in other industries. The situation today is that masters and ships' officers are engaged under company employment arrangements. Moves are in hand to bring other seafarers under similar arrangements.There is no doubt that both shipping and the legislation under which it operates are much in need of reform. The key element of the government's policy to reform the Australian shipping industry is the introduction of company employment for all seafarers. This was a major recommendation in the 1997 report by the Shipping Reform Group entitled A framework for reform of Australian shipping. Under company employment, the terms and conditions applying to seafarers are matters for negotiation between the seafarers and their employers. Legislative backing for such arrangements, which can be tailored to the needs of individual companies, can be obtained through the Workplace Relations Act.Not only are most of the current highly prescriptive employment provisions in the Navigation Act unnecessary but they are also inimical to the development of productive and trusting working relationships between seafarers and their employers. The Shipping Reform Group's report states that the positive outcomes from introducing company employment include improved relations between employer and employee, the forging of an enterprise culture and outcomes, the more efficient introduction of quality management systems and the more effective planning of crew requirements.As a result of the impetus provided by the Commonwealth's withdrawal of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority from the pooled labour system known as the seafarers engagement system, the industry has almost com pleted its transition to company employment for all seafarers. While there still seems to be some reluctance on the part of the Maritime Union of Australia to take this first step of the reform process, company employment will, to all intents and purposes, be in place from 1 July 1998.While company employment is a worthwhile step in the reform process, much more needs to be done to make Australian crewed vessels competitive. The current cost disadvantage suffered by Australian crewed vessels must be reduced through measures such as those recommended by the Shipping Reform Group. It is important for both employers and unions to come to an agreement to achieve the necessary savings. For the Commonwealth's part, we will need to be satisfied that any reforms, including genuine company employment, are real, measurable and in place before considering any of the `reform linked equity measures' suggested by the Shipping Reform Group. I make it clear that we make no commitment to any such measures prior to the entering into of any genuine arrangements by the parties.I look forward to having an opportunity to discuss these issues with industry in the near future to assess progress against these criteria. It will be very much in the interests of Australian shipowners and seafarers to cooperate fully in achieving the objective of an efficient and competitive industry as the survival of Australian shipping will depend on it.In line with the aim of removing provisions in the Navigation Act that are inconsistent with company employment, the bill repeals about 50 sections and subsections in the act containing detailed employment related provisions. In addition, there are a number of other consequential amendments in the bill which are required as a result of the provisions to be repealed and the need to broaden the concept of an employment agreement so as to provide the flexibility allowed for under the Workplace Relations Act.The major amendments in the bill will abolish the Marine Council and its functions, and will also remove provisions dealing with prohibition on demanding or receiving fees for the supply of seamen; prohibition on using the crew of a ship engaged in overseas voyages for handling cargo or ballast while the ship is in an Australian port; requirements to enter into a prescribed form of `articles of agreement' covering conditions of employment; and certain procedures for the discharge of seamen from service on a ship and methods for paying their wages.The Marine Council comprises an employee of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, and representatives of shipowners and seafarers. The council has previously dealt mainly with issues concerning the suitability of seamen for employment at sea and whether there is just cause to suspend a seaman from employment on ships. For example, the council may be called upon to consider what to do about seamen who report late for work. Under company employment it is the responsibility of the employer to deal with these matters and there is no need for a government appointed body to perform such tasks. Accordingly, the bill provides for the repeal of sections 47, 48, 138 and 424.At present section 32 of the act prohibits demanding or receiving fees for the supply of seamen. This provision originally came from the British Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 and was intended to prohibit demanding payment from seamen for finding them jobs. This practice was generally known as crimping. However, the wording in section 32 goes much wider than prohibiting crimping. In fact, it could be interpreted as referring to any commercial business activity involved in recruiting seafarers for shipping companies.At present there are many ship management and crewing agents around the world that specialise in managing crewing matters, including supplying seamen, on behalf of shipowners and charge them for such services. Given this situation and the normal employment practices in Australia, section 32 is no longer appropriate and the bill provides for its repeal.The question of what limits should be placed on the work to be carried out by a ship's crew is a matter that should be determined by negotiation between employers and their seagoing employees. While as a general rule shore side stevedores carry out the loading and unloading of ships, there can be circumstances where it may be quite appropriate for the crew to handle goods that could fall under the broad description of cargo. Examples include the cleaning of holds, where the crew would need to handle residues of cargo and the loading of ships' stores. In any event, it is no longer appropriate for restrictions of this sort to be in the Navigation Act and the bill provides for the repeal of section 45 of the act dealing with this matter.Articles of agreement are in effect a contract of employment between the master of a ship, on behalf of the employer, and each member of the crew. The Navigation Act prescribes in great detail the procedures and content of articles of agreement. As such, this aspect of the act is inconsistent with the aims of the Workplace Relations Act which are to give employers and employees a high degree of flexibility in making employment arrangements best suited to their needs.Articles of agreement are provided for in ILO Convention 22, which dates back to 1926 when most seafarers were employed on a casual basis and the articles were the only legal instrument available to protect the interests of seafarers. Given the moves in Australia to company employment and the aims of the Workplace Relations Act, it is quite appropriate for Australia and other parties to that convention to interpret it in a manner consistent with its own present day employment legislation.The present narrow definition of `agreement', which only covers the traditional articles of agreement in section 6 of the Navigation Act, needs to be broadened to cover any form of agreement including certified agreements and Australian workplace agreements under the Workplace Relations Act. The bill provides for this as mentioned under items 1, 2, and 5 of the explanatory memorandum. The bill also provides for the replacement of the highly prescriptive provisions covering the form of agreement for seafarers with a much simplified requirement. A new and more flexible definition of an agreement is provided under a new subsection 6(8). While the bill removes the prescriptive elements covering articles of agreement, it still leaves a requirement in section 46 of the Navigation Act that a ship shall not be taken to sea unless the employer has entered into an agreement with the master and seamen. The details of such an agreement will be matters for negotiation between the parties concerned. Section 50 of the Navigation Act places a six-month limitation on the duration of a seafarer's engagement under the existing articles of agreement system, and includes requirements concerning a shipowner's obligations to pay the cost of returning a seafarer to his or her agreed return port. Again, these are matters that should be dealt with by negotiations between employers and their seagoing employees and it is not appropriate to have them prescribed in the Navigation Act.Legislative backing for agreements covering seafarers can be obtained through the Workplace Relations Act. In line with the revised approach to the employment of seafarers, the bill substitutes a redrafted section 46, and provides for the repeal of sections 46(2), (2A), (4), 4(A), 50, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57.The bill amends section 52 by removing the requirement for the employer to notify the Australian Maritime Safety Authority of changes of crew on a ship. However, for safety purposes section 52 will retain the requirement that owners and/or masters must provide AMSA with details of the crew on a ship when requested by AMSA. This information could be needed to assist in dealing with an emergency situation on a ship or assessing if a ship is adequately crewed.Division 9 contains very detailed requirements covering procedures for discharging a seaman from serving on a ship. These procedures include a requirement for the master of a ship to issue seamen with certificates of discharge. This process is associated with ending a seafarer's employment agreement under articles of agreement, which will no longer be mandatory. These procedures are no longer appropriate to company employment arrangements and the bill provides for the repeal of all the sections in division 9 of part II of the act.In future it is intended that the employer will be required to provide, on request, to a master or seaman who is employed or has been employed by that employer, a statement of service containing prescribed information relating to that employment. That record is for the purposes of calculating service to meet the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation's Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW). This requirement can be provided for under marine orders made pursuant to section 15 of the act.Division 10 contains another very detailed set of provisions covering how wages are to be paid to seafarers. One such provision is contained in section 70, under which a seaman has the right to have up to three-fourths of his or her wages paid to a grandparent, parent, wife, husband, brother, sister, child, or grandchild.The bill also repeals other provisions in division 10 prescribing matters concerning the payment of wages to seafarers. This amendment removes provisions associated with employment under articles of agreement covering service on a particular ship for a particular voyage. As articles of agreement will no longer be mandatory, it is not appropriate to retain these provisions.The sections in division 10 to be repealed deal with:. allotment of a proportion of a seamen's wages to a nominated party or parties;. right to sue upon allotment notes;. commencement of payment of allotments;. allotment to banks;. payment of wages upon discharge;. computation of wages;. account of wages on discharge;. time for payment of wages;. wages to run on in certain cases;. reference of differences to a superintendent; and. commencement of right to wages.In addition, section 84 provides that wages shall not be dependent on the earning of freight. This is another irrelevant and outdated provision to be repealed under the bill.I understand that nowadays these provisions are seldom if ever used and there is no need to retain them in the Navigation Act. Clearly, arrangements for paying wages to seafarers are matters that can and should be covered under company employment agreements. Also the entitlement to, and payment of, wages for seamen will be subject to the types of laws, awards and agreements which apply to other industries in Australia.Sections 83, 85, 91 and 94, which deal with the rights of masters and seamen in respect of claims for wages and repatriation to their home port if the ship on which they are serving is lost or wrecked, or the owner or operator goes bankrupt during a voyage, are to be retained. However, the need to keep these provisions in the Navigation Act will be further examined during the stage 2 review of the act.Other provisions related to wages are contained in sections 132 and 132B concerning sick leave. These are matters that should be covered under company employment arrangements rather than being prescribed in the Navigation Act. Accordingly, these sections are to be repealed.Under section 132 a seafarer who is left onshore due to illness during a voyage is entitled to a maximum of three months paid sick leave. This is an entitlement that applies on each occasion that a seafarer falls sick during a voyage. The current award covering seafarers picks up this provision by stating that section 132 of the Navigation Act applies under the award.Sick leave is one of the 20 allowable matters under the Workplace Relations Act and is clearly a matter which should be dealt with through negotiations between employers and employees. It is certainly not a matter that should be prescribed in the Navigation Act.Another provision in the Navigation Act related to seafarers who fall sick is section 132B, which requires seafarers who are left on shore to furnish an address and/or report to a doctor for a medical examination. There is no need for such a detailed matter to be prescribed in the Navigation Act, and in any event this could be covered in employment arrangements between employers and their seagoing employees.Sections 148C and 148D prescribe what is to be done about the wages and effects of seamen left behind at a port during a voyage. This is yet another example of employment issues that should be dealt with under company employment or other arrangements covered under the Workplace Relations Act. Accordingly, the bill provides for the repeal of these sections.Other significant amendmentsGiven the move to company employment, there are several other provisions in the Navigation Act that are no longer appropriate and the bill provides for their repeal. Probably one of the most pedantic and unnecessary provisions in the act is the one that requires that the crew of a ship licensed to engage in the coasting trade be given access to a ship's library.There are other provisions in the Navigation Act which are based on the assumption that seafarers have to be formally discharged from a particular ship at the end of their tour of service. However, under company employment such a process will not be necessary or appropriate, as the employment of seafarers belonging to a company will be continuous and could cover service on more than one ship operated by that company.Other provisions in the act ascribe certain functions such as the resolution of disputes and discipline to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. AMSA will no longer be undertaking these functions as they are matters that should be handled by the employer. This of course is common practice in other industries in Australia.The bill provides for the repeal of these and other provisions covering matters such as determinations by a government official of the home port to which a seaman is entitled to be returned after completing service on a ship, and reports to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority concerning the code of conduct applying to seafarers.Paragraphs 377C (d), (e) and (f) in the Navigation Act allow for reviews by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of employment arrangements covered in legislative provisions to be repealed under the bill. Therefore, these paragraphs need to be repealed. They concern applications for review of a decision to:. refuse to approve an agreement under subsection 46(2A);. determine that a person is unsuitable for engagement as a seafarer under subsection 47(1) or revoke such a determination under subsection 47(2);. disallow or refuse to disallow a deduction under subsection 76(4); and. refuse to waive, under subsection 76(5), requirements that ship masters keep appropriate records of deductions.As a concluding observation, it is interesting to note that a textbook on shipping law written by two British barristers has noted that no other body of workers, except perhaps children, has been given the same protected position as seamen. While conditions in the shipping industry 100 years ago might have justified the detailed employment provisions that have found their way into the Navigation Act, this is not the case today when Australian seafarers enjoy exceptionally good working conditions. There can be no doubt that legislation covering Australian seafarers needs to be greatly simplified and brought into line with that applying to other industries in this country.As I conclude I note that, as this bill is being introduced, the waterfront dispute is now coming to an end as workers for the Patrick organisation on the Australian waterfront vote to support an agreement which will see very significant improvements in the productivity of Australian ports. In fact, by voting for the agreement, they are voting for Australia to have internationally competitive crane rates, thereby bringing Australia into line with its international competitors and bringing about the prospect that for the Australian economy as a whole, living standards could be increased by $1,000 million per annum, with the creation of an extra 4,000 jobs Australia-wide. These are very significant reforms.In the legislation that I have introduced, we are in fact removing a lot of prescription in the existing legislation. This is another mark of the government's determination to remove unnecessary prescription and also to remove a lot of unnecessary red tape. That has been a feature of this government's administration in our two years in office.The introduction of this legislation is yet another sign that the government's determination to reform this and other industries is a continuing one, and I therefore commend this legislation to the House. It represents a significant reform in itself, not for the new measures it is introducing, but it is a particularly good piece of legislation because in this legislation we do not introduce new laws, we repeal a whole lot of outdated and archaic laws. I would hope that in the future many more pieces of legislation can be introduced which do not introduce more laws but instead get rid of laws which today are in the way of jobs and creating wealth in the Australian economy. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills5374r5615374Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.537409:53:005374Kemp, 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 States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1998-99 budget.These initiatives will provide $20 million for the introduction of full service schools over three years from 1998 to deliver additional support for schools to develop innovative programs and services that address the needs of young people returning to school following the introduction of the youth allowance and for current students who are at risk of not completing year 12 or making a successful transition from school to training, further education or employment.The bill also provides $40.2 million for the extension of the national Asian languages and studies in Australian schools (NALSAS) strategy over two years from 1998 to support enhanced and expanded Asian languages and Asian studies provision through all school systems in order to improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact internationally, particularly with key Asian economies.The bill also contains a number of other minor amendments which will, firstly, allow for flexibility of funding allocations under the literacy and country areas programs so that funding allocated to state and territory government and non-government education authorities under these programs is based on relative need using the most up-to-date Australian Bureau of Statistics census data. Secondly, the bill contains changed funding schedules for capital grants for government and non-government schools to insert amounts of capital funding for 2001 and vary the amounts of 1997 recurrent and capital grants in respect of the 1997 supplementation and provide for its flow-on effects for 1998, 1999 and 2000.The bill will also rectify an inadvertent omission in the original act for grants for expenditure on special education at or in connection with non-government centres to allow the full range of special education services to be provided under the legislation; incorporate a technical amendment to clearly define the role of the Governor-General in making regulations under the act; and incorporate a minor stylistic change to the format of the act.The government is committed to reducing youth unemployment and believes that it is important to encourage our young people under 18 to complete their schooling or, if they leave school early, to move on to further training or employment. The new youth allowance is an important element of the government's strategy to achieve these goals. Youth allowance, which begins on 1 July, is a major social policy reform which provides more financial incentives for young people to develop the skills they so desperately need to improve their chances of finding a job. The youth allowance is a big win for young people. It will mean students will no longer be financially disadvantaged in comparison to the young unemployed.The youth allowance provides a simplified system of income support which better caters for the various circumstances faced by young people, while ensuring that incentives for education and training are maximised. It is a simpler, more flexible payment system which incorporates five payments into one and 13 different rates of payment into five. As well as providing positive incentives for young Australians to take up education and training to improve their long-term job prospects, youth allowance removes the financial incentives for young people to go on the dole rather than undertaking skills acquisition.Introduction of the youth allowance will mean additional expenditure to the social security budget of $212 million over the next four years. Some 153,750 young Australians will receive more money under the youth allowance, while 358,600 will continue to receive the same amount of money as they do now. In short, the youth allowance will provide a better deal for young Australians who receive income support. In order to receive the youth allowance from January 1999, eligible young people under 18 years who have not completed year 12 or equivalent must be in full-time education or training unless specifically exempted.In recognition of the possible additional costs associated with these high needs students, the Commonwealth has established the full service schools program. It will target students who are not likely to benefit from mainstream pathways and enable them to achieve quality learning outcomes. The $20 million for thefull service schools program is part of a package of Commonwealth initiatives which provide additional funding to schools, industry and community groups to provide education and training for these young people. The other measures are an additional $13.5 million over the years 1998-2000 for the jobs pathway program and an additional $6.21 million over 1998-2000 for the new apprenticeship access program.During 1998-99, the jobs pathway program will assist around 20,000 young people while the new apprenticeship access program will assist some 7,000 young people. Funds for full service schools projects will be directed to schools in areas with the highest numbers of young people affected by the implementation of the youth allowance. Funds will be available to schools for a variety of activities, including the employment of specialist teachers or counsellors; providing professional development for teachers and other staff; delivering and developing special courses such as courses in pre-vocational education or training; and assisting students to access other government and community support services.To facilitate links between the government and non-government sectors and to ensure comprehensive services are provided in any given regional area, a steering committee will manage the implementation of full service schools in each state and territory. State and territory steering committees will consist of representatives of government and non-government education authorities, the Commonwealth, principals' organisations and parent groups.The NALSAS strategy is a cooperative initiative between Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The NALSAS strategy assists government and non-government schools to improve participation and proficiency levels in language learning, particularly in four targeted Asian languages—Japanese, Chinese (Mandarin), Indonesian and Korean, and to introduce or increase Asian studies content across the curriculum.Commonwealth funding is matched by the states and territories. Most of the Commonwealth funds are paid direct to the state, territory and non-government education systems on the basis of student enrolments up to the limit of the available funds. Part of the Commonwealth's contribution is also used to fund projects developed in collaboration with the states and territories to support the implementation of the strategy. The Commonwealth agreed to fund the program for four years, with further funding subject to an evaluation of the program.New funds of $40.2 million were provided in the budget to take the program through to the end of 1999 to allow full consideration of the evaluation. This extra funding for the NALSAS strategy will be used to provide continued support to teachers and students.The government's funding policies for schools will assist in ensuring quality educational outcomes for students in government and non-government schools. Total direct Commonwealth schools funding will provide in excess of $16 billion for schools over the period 1997 to 2000. The Commonwealth budget papers show that funding for schools is estimated to increase each year to 1999-2000, with an average increase of around 3.6 per cent per year. This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to schooling in Australia. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills5376r5495376Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.537610:03:005376Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill introduces the legislation package to implement budget initiatives to generally make social security payments payable fortnightly in arrears which will simplify the Social Security Act 1991 and provide consis tency. The bill will also simplify the date of effect of determinations made under the act.Currently, social security payments are payday based, period based or lump sum amounts. The bill will change all payday based social security payments, that is, social security pensions and payments made under the family allowance system—for example, family allowance and child disability allowance—into period based payments similar to the current payment system for social security benefits. Payments of lump sum amounts, such as for maternity allowance and maternity immunisation allowance, will not be affected by this initiative.The changed payments arrangements will provide that an instalment of a social security payment will be payable in arrears for a period and at the times specified by the secretary. In general terms, an instalment period will be a period of 14 days. However, the legislation will be flexible in that shorter or longer periods will able to be determined. For example, all Australian pensioners who reside overseas will continue to receive their portable pensions every 28 days and in respect of a period of 28 days.All social security payments that are period based will also have specific legislative provisions enabling a daily rate of payment to be calculated. This will ensure that a person's exact entitlement is able to be determined in respect of a period. This will simplify the understanding of the social security system not only for customers but for interest groups, courts, tribunals and staff of Centrelink and the Department of Social Security by matching the payments received with the periods for which the payments are made.The initiative will substantially reduce overlapping entitlements and non-recoverable excess payments because of efficiencies gained by reducing processing times. For those customers who find themselves in severe financial hardship, legislative provisions that allow an advance payment to be made—generally of an amount equivalent to one week's entitlement—will be available to ease this hardship.This bill will also make significant amendments to the date of effect provisions in the Social Security Act 1991. These new provisions will ensure greater efficiency, equity and accuracy in the reassessment of social security payments. The commencement provisions will not be affected by this initiative.The date of effect provisions in the Social Security Act 1991 currently vary from payment to payment. This initiative will simplify these provisions by providing consistent treatment across payment types. The social security system will be enhanced and improved by becoming more responsive because inconsistencies will be removed. More determinations will be automated so errors will be lessened. Further, simpler transfer provisions will also result in more streamlined administration.The general rule in respect of the date of effect of a determination will simply be that an event or a change in circumstances that necessitates a reassessment of a customer's entitlement will be from the date of the event or the change in circumstances. General reporting requirements will be a consistent seven days, the notification period. However, a longer period of up to 28 days will be given to those customers who, in special circumstances, either because of the type of event or change in circumstances or because of the individual circumstances of the person concerned, require a longer period in which to report to Centrelink. Customers who reside overseas, in remote localities or experience a bereavement, for example, can all be provided, as a principle of government policy, with an extended notification period.This bill will make similar changes to income support payments made under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills5377r5605377Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time. 537810:08:005378Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill puts in place arrangements that will fulfil the terms of the Commonwealth's offer of general revenue assistance to the states and territories at the 1998 Premiers Conference. The bill also provides authority for the Commonwealth to pay to the states and territories the revenue it will collect in 1998-99 under the safety net arrangements which have been implemented to protect state and territory revenues following the High Court decision in 1997 which severely curtailed the states' capacity to raise revenues through business franchise fees.The bill will amend the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994. The existing act covers the provision of financial assistance for 1997-98, with interim arrangements for the continuation of payments for a maximum of six months. The bill extends for a further 12 months the provisions of the act relating to the payment of financial assistance grants and state and territory entitlements to payments under the safety net arrangements.The general revenue assistance to be appropriated by this bill is about $17.1 billion, or around 12 per cent of estimated Commonwealth outlays in 1998-99. Accordingly, these payments constitute a significant element of the Commonwealth budget and have an important bearing on the spending and borrowing of the public sector as a whole. The states and territories are able to allocate the funds provided by the Commonwealth under this act according to their own budgetary priorities. In addition, revenue replacement payments to the states under the safety net arrangements are estimated to be $6.5 billion in 1998-99. The safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth.I turn now to the elements of the bill which give effect to the Commonwealth's funding commitments to the states and territories. The states and territories will be provided with real per capita growth in financial assistance grants in 1998-99 and the real per capita guarantee for financial assistance grants will be extended to 2000-01. Amendments to the act are consistent with the per capita element of the real per capita guarantee being conditional on states meeting the terms of the agreement to implement the national competition policy and related reforms. This agreement also provides for up to $217.2 million in competition payments to the states and territories in 1998-99. The views of the National Competition Council will be taken into consideration by the Commonwealth in deciding whether a state or territory should receive the payments provided under the national competition policy agreement in 1998-99.The major part of the assistance provided under this bill is the payment to each state and territory of a share of the pool of financial assistance grants which is estimated to be about $16.8 billion in 1998-99. The distribution of financial assistance grants will be in accordance with equalisation per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its 1998 update report. The bill updates the per capita relativities accordingly and makes appropriate amendments to the definition in the act of the amount of unquarantined health funding to be used for calculating the combined pool of financial assistance grants and health care grants.The Australian Capital Territory will also receive $25 million from the Commonwealth in 1998-99 in the form of transitional allowances and special fiscal needs. This payment is outside the scope of this bill and has been included in the appropriation bills.The payment of financial assistance grants to the states and territories will be conditional upon the states and territories meeting their commitment to make fiscal contribution payments of $313.4 million in 1998-99. This represents a 50 per cent reduction from the total fiscal contribution of the states and territories in 1997-98. State fiscal contributions will cease after 1998-99. The states and territories agreed at the 1996 Premiers Conference to make the fiscal contributions in recognition of the deficit reduction task required to stabilise the national economy. The Commonwealth's fiscal consolidation effort remains a central priority, particularly in light of the recent instability in the Asian region.Since its election in March 1996 the government has turned around the fiscal position of the Commonwealth from a budget deficit of $10.3 billion in 1995-96 to an expected surplus of $2.7 billion in 1998-99, with continued surpluses expected over the forward estimates period. The improvement in the Commonwealth's fiscal position has played a major role in shielding the economy against enormous volatility and instability in the Asian region. Continued fiscal improvement is essential if Australia's vulnerability to these and future external shocks is to be minimised.The Commonwealth will continue to provide states and territories with maximum flexibility concerning the method of payment of the state fiscal contributions. A state's share can be paid by way of deductions from general revenue assistance, direct payments to the Commonwealth or a reduction in funding provided under a specific purpose grant. Provisions have been included in the bill to allow for states' 1998-99 fiscal contributions to be deducted from general revenue assistance.Finally, I turn to the elements of the bill which relate to the safety net arrangements. The safety net measures introduced by the Commonwealth protect state and territory revenues following the High Court decision of 5 August 1997 on state business franchise fees. The Commonwealth is using its tax powers to collect the revenue that the states and territories previously collected by way of business franchise fees on petroleum products, tobacco and alcoholic beverages. The states and territories acknowledge that this represents a state tax imposed and collected by the Commonwealth at their unanimous request and on their behalf.The proposed amendments provide authority for the Commonwealth to pay the states and territories the revenue it collects under the safety net arrangements in 1998-99. These payments are estimated to be $6.5 billion in 1998-99. The amendments also include provisions which return to the states and territories any tax revenues the Commonwealth might receive under the Franchise Fees Windfall Tax (Collection) Act 1997. This will ensure that state and territory finances are protected from claims for refunds, on grounds of constitutional invalidity, of past payments of business franchise fees.As I noted earlier, the safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth. Revenue replacement payments will simply return to the states and territories amounts raised by the Commonwealth on their behalf, after allowing for Commonwealth administrative costs. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Committees53795379537910:16:005379Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—by leave—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following Finance minutes of reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit: Finance minute on report 349—review of Auditor-General's reports 1995-96 ; Finance minute on report 350—review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—first quarter ; and Finance minute on report 352—review of Auditor-General's report 1996-97—second quarter .These Finance minutes represent the responses from various Commonwealth agencies to three reports of the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts. JCPA reports 349, 350 and 352 reviewed the reports of the Auditor-General between 1995-96 and the 1996-97 second quarter. The JCPA has a statutory responsibility to review all of the reports of the Auditor-General. I am pleased to note that the responses in the Finance minutes are generally supportive of the JCPA's recommendations and most agencies have responded positively to most recommendations.The first Finance minute relates to JCPA report 349, which reviewed the reports of the Auditor-General for the 1995-96 financial year. This Finance minute contains positive responses to the committee's recommendations. Recommendation No. 6 of this report relates to an ongoing issue between the Auditor-General and government agencies, particularly the Department of Defence. Recommendation No. 6 states:The Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs should ensure, when establishing contracts with private sector employment agencies, that the contract provisions make explicit the Auditor-General's statutory authority to obtain information from third party service providers.The department accepted this recommendation and has included an appropriate reference to the Auditor-General's statutory authority in draft contractual documentation to cover the provisional employment services by private sector contractors. A similar issue was raised in JCPA report 344, with one of the recommendations calling on the Department of Defence to ensure that major procurement contracts contain provisions which enable the Auditor-General to gain sufficient access to contractor records to allow the costs associated with quotes, claims and contract amendments to be verified.This issue has been a matter of dispute between the JCPA and the Department of Defence for some time now, having its origins in the JCPA review of the first audit report on the new submarine project and the JCPA's recent review of the JORN project. The Auditor-General's latest audit of the new submarine project also raised the need for direct access by ANAO to records of transactions of contractors or major contractors which support the expenditure of Commonwealth funds. The Department of Defence rejected this recommendation. The committee notes that the issue of access including physical access to private contractors' premises by the Auditor-General has been heavily debated with a range of contesting views provided. The committee will be giving this and other issues serious consideration in its forward work program.The second Finance minute relates to JCPA report 350, which reviewed the reports of the Auditor-General for the first quarter of 1996- 97. This Finance minute contains positive responses to the committee's recommendations.The third Finance minute relates to JCPA report 352, which reviewed the reports of the Auditor-General for the second quarter of 1996-97. The responses in this Finance minute are generally supportive of the JCPA's recommendations. I commend these Finance minutes to the House.5380538010:21:005380Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the following report: Report 361—Auditor-General's reports 1997-98: first quarter .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—The main purpose of this report is to inform the parliament that the committee has reviewed the audit reports presented by the Auditor-General during the first quarter of 1997-98. The committee selected two Auditor-General's reports for further examination at a public hearing held on 16 December 1997. Today I propose to highlight issues about which the committee has the most concern.First, I wish to make some comments about audit report No. 5—Performance management of Defence inventory—Department of Defence. The issues canvassed by the committee with respect to this report included best practice in supply chain performance management, managing inventory as an asset, clearer performance targets, integrated and effective performance management, the impact of performance management on Defence inventory management culture and the availability and retention of inventory management expertise.The current Defence inventory of spares, consumables and repairable items, excluding explosive ordnance, is valued at approximately $3.9 billion. Extra procurement and maintenance of repairable items by external contractors costs an additional $1 billion annually. The committee welcomes the comprehensiveness of the audit and the Department of Defence's agreement to all of its recommendations. However, this committee has longstanding concerns about the performance management of Defence inventory and assets and the inability of Defence to fully address recommendations from previous reviews and audits.The committee appreciates that the legacy of three separate logistics organisations has contributed to fragmentation, isolation and a lack of interservice communication. This has resulted in significant duplication of effort in logistics performance management in Defence. The committee, therefore, supports the establishment of a single performance management organisation and welcomes the formation of Support Command Australia, established in 1997.At the same time, the committee believes that a watching brief should be maintained on the ability of this new organisation to ensure the success of an integrated information system across Defence. The committee recommends that the Department of Defence should conduct annual reviews of the strategies used by Support Command Australia to ensure rationalisation of duplicated functions across Defence is successful.The committee appreciates the unique nature of inventory management in a defence context. However, the committee considers that managing Defence inventory as an asset, particularly in the accrual accounting environment, should focus attention on the level of stock needed to meet Defence contingency planning. Contingency and strategic planning is central to the effective management of any major organisation, whether in the public or private sector. The committee recommends that Defence should arrange to examine the methods adopted by overseas defence organisations and should benchmark its inventory performance management against comparable inventories in the private sector.The committee agrees with the audit findings that Defence should increase the use of clearly identified performance targets in order to provide meaning and direction for the development of performance measures in the supply chain. The committee does not accept Defence's argument that, within its distribu tion chain, performance targets are difficult to measure and expects that Defence will implement the audit report recommendations to which it has agreed.The committee considered the question of training and education in the area of inventory management. The committee accepts the audit findings that there is a significant shortage of inventory management and supply chain professionals. The committee is concerned, therefore, that Defence has not sufficiently addressed the problem of attracting suitably qualified personnel into its organisation.The committee does not accept the proposition put forward by Defence that staff loyalty to the Defence Force alone will retain highly qualified personnel. Without specialised staff, it is unlikely that the large savings anticipated from the performance management of Defence inventory will be achieved. The committee recommends that Defence should seek to identify ways by which it can attract and retain staff qualified in the management of inventory and supply chain.I now turn to the second audit report examined by the committee—audit report No. 10, 1997-98: Aspects of corporate governance: the Australian Tourism Commission. The Australian Tourism Commission is a statutory authority that operates under the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987. A 10-member board governs the ATC which, with the exception of the managing director, is appointed by and reports to the Minister for Sport and Tourism.The committee appreciates the timeliness of the audit and its thoroughness in highlighting the need for a range of reform measures. Foremost amongst these is the need for the ATC to ensure that it achieves its statutory objectives and that links are developed between these and the ATC's corporate objectives.The committee's hearing focused on the audit report findings that the ATC is currently unable to demonstrate that it is fully meeting all of its statutory objectives—in particular, the objective which relates to the protection of Australia from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism and to aspects of the objective relating to maximis ing the benefits to Australia from international tourism.The ATC has three statutory objectives. These are: to increase the number of visitors to Australia from overseas, to maximise the benefits to Australia from overseas visitors, and to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of social tourism.The committee notes that the ATC recognises the benefits of the audit, has agreed with all of the recommendations and has taken action to implement a number of them. The committee understands that the ATC has won a number of national and international marketing awards and welcomes the recognition it has been given by the World Tourism Organisation as one of the most efficient tourism authorities in the world.However, the committee is concerned that areas of weaknesses identified in various audits and reviews have not been addressed because of a lack of effective and ongoing processes to monitor and implement recommendations. The committee recommends that, within the context of a corporate governance framework, the ATC should introduce effective and ongoing processes to monitor the implementation of recommendations made in previous audits and reviews. The committee agrees with the audit findings that the ATC faces particular challenges in interpreting and addressing the broader implication of its statutory objectives—in particular, the objective relating to the protection of Australia from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.The committee appreciates that a lack of regulatory powers inhibits the ATC from meeting this objective and recommends a two-pronged approach. First, the ATC should enter into an extensive dialogue with relevant state and territory authorities for the purposes of developing a cohesive strategy to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of overseas tourism. Second, the board of the ATC should propose to the Minister for Sport and Tourism that the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1987 be amended to clarify the ATC's role.The committee considered the ability of the ATC to measure its performance against statutory obligations. In the area of visitor numbers, for example, the committee believes that the ATC has been unable to assess whether tourists had been attracted by its marketing campaign, are avoiding current world trouble spots or are reacting solely on beneficial exchange rates.In the committee's view, the ATC's performance under its statutory objective to increase arrivals has been uneven. The committee agrees with the audit findings that the extent to which the ATC's investment in international tourism promotion has contributed to the increase in visitor numbers is unclear from the ATC's performance information. In order to ensure that the ATC has sufficient controls and processes in place to monitor its performance and report on outcomes, the committee recommends the ATC should seek the employment of a professional consultant to work with program managers for the purpose of developing a sound corporate governance framework.The committee, against the background of the current Asian economic crisis, discussed the impact on Australian tourism from Asia. The committee understands that visitor numbers from South-East Asia are falling but agrees with the view of the ATC that to walk away from the Asian market at this time would be foolhardy. It is too early to say precisely what the economic outcomes in the region are likely to be. The committee welcomes the ATC's plans to continue exploring a number of strategies to help revitalise the business because the signs are both positive and negative. This relates particularly to the relative weakness of the Australian dollar to the US dollar and the UK pound.In the Tourism Forecasting Council's assessment, the outlook for growth from the markets in the USA and Canada remains positive and Europe will continue to be an important source market, although tourism from that region is expected to increase at a slower rate than most other markets. While the committee does not expect the ATC to lessen its efforts in developing Asian markets at this time, it is clear from statistics cited in the committee's report that the North American and European markets have further potential for development.The trend in visitor numbers from 1994-95 to 1995-96 shows a slight increase in tourist numbers from several countries in North America and Europe. For example, the United States of America shows a modest increase of five per cent. However, there has been negative growth from Germany, while France and the United Kingdom have decreased by nine per cent and three per cent respectively. The ATC has a continuing statutory obligation to increase the number of international visitors to Australia. To ensure the ATC meets its objective, the committee believes it is timely for the ATC to develop strategies which aim to reinvigorate the North American and European markets.May I conclude by thanking on behalf of the committee those people who contributed their time and expertise to the committee's review hearings, upon which this report is based. The committee appreciates the cooperation it has received from the agencies involved. I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee, who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiries, Dr Margot Kerley, the committee secretary, Ms Marie Kawaja, Ms Jennifer Hughson and Ms Tiana Gray. I commend the report to the House.10:34:005383Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—by leave—I would like to add to the comments made by the Chair of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), on Report 361—Auditor-General's reports 1997-98: first quarter . As was mentioned by the member for La Trobe, two reports were taken on board by the committee to examine and review in some detail. This is a process which is followed with audit reports quarterly by the committee and it has been done so over the last 12 months to two years. I think it is an improved process for actually dealing with a large number of reports that are generated by the Auditor-General. As a comment on the process as such, I do not believe the significance of the ANAO's work with respect to audit reports and the review of the operation of government is fully understood for the very important aspect that is. People are looking for efficiency within government right across the board. The fact is that one of the most significant aspects of the role of the Auditor-General and his office is looking for good practice and best practice in the operation of government in this country.Once again, we are looking at a report which relates to the Department of Defence and, as I have been known to say in the past, this is nothing new. We regularly find ourselves looking in some detail at Defence reports, and there are a number of reasons for that in terms of the nature of Defence as an organisation. This report does highlight some of those reasons, including the size of Defence, the unusual nature of the activities that are undertaken by Defence—and there is a very significant aspect to that—and, at the same time, the fact that there is still significant room for improvement.As the member for La Trobe said, the current Defence inventory of spares, consumables and repairable items, excluding explosives, is valued at approximately $3.9 billion, with extra procurement and maintenance of repairable items by external contractors costing an additional $1 billion annually. So we are looking at huge sums of money. When we talk about where our taxes goes, we certainly have the situation where Defence is a significant budget item for any government and, when you look at those figures, you get an idea of how significant it is in the overall. The fact is that there are reasons for why Defence is a bit different to many other places.When you are looking at whether Defence needs those sorts of stocks, you are looking at availability. With many Defence items, it is not a situation where you can just shoot down to the shop and buy what you need on the spot. The fact is that large components of Defence's requirements for its defensive capability are of high cost and of limited availability. If you are looking at the contin gency requirements of Defence strategically, obviously they are things that will be needed immediately. You really need to have that stuff available.Having said that, the fact is that there are still significant components of that Defence budget and inventory which are still easily achievable on short notice, and Defence has to look more at those sorts of issues. I think that is happening, but I do not think it is happening as fast as one would hope. As was mentioned earlier, reports have been done previously through the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and audits were done earlier by ANAO which have pointed to these problems and have made recommendations. In defence of Defence, there has been movement, but I do not think that movement has been fast enough.The recommendations made by ANAO, as has been said, have been largely accepted. But once again, from the committee's point of view, that is fine but we are hoping to not to have to look at this area again, because as a committee we find that we are re-looking at aspects of Defence's budget on a regular basis. I accept that, given the efficiency review within Defence, it is a time of great turmoil and change, but there are changes that need to be made in some aspects and there certainly is a need to look more at processes and operational requirements in order to try to make sure that we are not carrying too much in terms of inventory, because if you are carrying large sums of money and value in terms of inventory you are actually costing the budget bottom line significantly in the process. That is certainly what the review has shown.I would like to emphasise a couple of points with respect to recommendations. There is a need to compare what Defence does in Australia with comparable countries overseas. There are lessons that can be learnt; there is no point in organisations that are similar in nature in different countries reinventing the wheel. I think there is scope for that to occur.There is also the question of private sector comparisons. There is scope to do that to a degree. Again, I accept that Defence is un usual, but at the same time I do not think it is totally unusual and there are significant lessons that can be learnt.The chair of the committee, the member for La Trobe, also mentioned the question of training and education of staff to perform these roles. There is often a problem in Defence with holding on to qualified and experienced staff—the financial rewards in the private sector are often much more generous, so there are often difficulties in holding staff long term. But Defence has to make a real effort to identify ways to attract and retain staff in these sorts of areas. I do not pretend that that is easy, but it is something that needs to be done as a priority, because problems are occurring as a result of that expertise going, and those problems are making it more difficult to do what should be done in the defence area.Turning extremely briefly to the question of the review of the Tourist Commission, tourism has been an area of great growth in this country for a number of years now. There is a table of figures related to that as part of this report which I would urge members to have a look at. And as was mentioned by the member for La Trobe, the Tourist Commission has won a number of awards. One of the problems is again this measurement and evaluation aspect. To use another analogy, if you own a champion racehorse, it is not hard to train a winner. I think that there is an element of that in the matter of our performance in tourism. The problem is that we cannot confirm how successful the policies have been. There will now be a major test in this area because of the Asian economic downturn and what that is going to do to our tourism figures. There are also other concerns about how we will perform overall in tourism. But that need for matching up statutory and corporate objectives and that need to be able to measure and evaluate performance are really important in any organisation. It is nice to know you are going well, but you ought to be able to know why and how you are going well. If you cannot do that, then maybe you are not going quite as well as you think.The question of dealing with the relevant state and territory authorities and avoiding duplication and unnecessary problems with respect to coordination is a very important issue for tourism and for putting forward a position for Australia overseas. You are also looking at a question of being able to evaluate why people are coming to Australia and what the basis for that movement is. As the committee noted:In the area of visitor numbers, for example, the ATC has been unable to assess whether tourists have been attracted by the marketing campaign, are avoiding world trouble and health spots, or reacting solely to beneficial exchange rates at the time.There are issues there that the ATC are looking to take on board, and it is important that they do. The end result of audits and reports such as this should be more efficiency, not only in terms of cost but also in terms of performance on behalf of taxpayers and government.I would also like to thank the staff of the committee for the work they have done on an ongoing basis. This is probably one of the most active committees in the parliament in terms of reports and actual output. I could say that I am sure that is because of the chairman and me, but I suspect it also has a lot to do with the work that the staff do. I thank them for that, and I thank the other members of the committee for the contributions they have made to this report.10:43:005385Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—by leave—I would like to speak about Audit Report No. 10 1997-98 , which is part of the review of the Auditor-General's first quarter 1997-98. This report deals with aspects of corporate governance of the Australian Tourist Commission. The tourism industry in Australia is now a very substantial one. As the two previous speakers from our committee, the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles) and the member for Bruce (Mr Griffin), mentioned, in 1996 our international visitor arrivals totalled 4.2 million, which was an increase of about 12 per cent over the previous year.When you consider too that our overseas fee paying students now contribute some $2 billion to the economy and that with them comes a lot of associated tourism in the form of their friends and relatives also visiting this country, we can see that tourism is a substan tial industry. Consequently, we have to take all possible steps to ensure that those visitors' experiences are positive and that the nation as a whole benefits.In particular, the ATC board is responsible for the corporate governance of the commission and is obliged to ensure that they meet their statutory responsibilities, communicate appropriately with stakeholders, manage risks to the organisation soundly, manage the resources effectively and that appropriate internal controls exist which enable the agency to monitor performance and report on outcomes.As the previous two speakers have said, there is a problem with the current methods of reporting performance. The ATC is doing a lot of advertising. It is doing a lot of overseas market research and marketing, but there is some difficulty in understanding exactly what the outcomes of that work are.For example, a point made by the ATC is that, although you might undertake some media advertising, internationally or domestically, it might be four years before visitor numbers indicate a response to that media advertising because there is not an automatic or immediate response—you do not simply have an ordinary supply and demand situation. We recognise that there are some difficulties with performance monitoring, but there has to be a very careful scrutiny of the management strategies, the dollars spent and the outcomes.In particular I want to pick up on one of the ATC's three statutory objectives:(c) to ensure that Australia is protected from adverse environmental and social impacts of international tourism.One of the major drawcards to our nation is our superb natural resources—flora, fauna and wide open spaces—and many of those places are very fragile. We all know about the threats to places like our Great Barrier Reef, the Bogong High Plains and perhaps even areas like Kakadu. While the areas are vast, often tourists congregate in very small parts of that vast wilderness, and we have to manage very carefully to make sure that there are not damaging impacts from both domestic and international tourists, because a conse quence of that is that the environment suffers and the tourist experience is a negative one.We are concerned that the ANAO found that, while the ATC has a strategy for ensuring that international tourists do not have any adverse effect on the Australian environment, there was not an ability to distinguish between the impact of international and domestic tourists and there is also a need for it to have further dialogue with states and territories to ensure that there is a comprehensive strategy to achieve the particular objective of ensuring very little environmental damage.We must guard our environmental integrity as we seek to increase our tourist numbers, and so this report is very timely. It received a very positive response from the Australian Tourist Commission itself, which understands only too well the work it needs to do. The ATC, in trying to achieve its statutory objective, explained to us that it will study social attitudes on the environmental impact of tourism. In conjunction with the Office of National Tourism, it will develop environmental messages to be published in ATC literature and on airlines flying to Australia, it will seek to develop partnerships with other organisations and undertake environmental best practice, and it will produce an annual portfolio of ecotourism and develop an environmental strategy.We commend the ATC for its efforts. In commending its work thus far, we know it has taken note of the ANAO's recommendations and has agreed that they are sound recommendations, and we can expect our tourism industry to be stronger when it picks up on its performance monitoring and makes sure the environmental strategies are the best possible.5386Charles, 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.Bills5386s1595386Debate resumed from 25 June, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.10:49:005386Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak about the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . This bill amends the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to prohibit the commercial taking of black and blue marlin throughout the Australian Fishing Zone. This bill was introduced into the Senate on 8 April this year and passed through the Senate on 28 April 1998.Prior to the 1996 election campaign, the coalition promised that it would introduce mandatory bans on the taking of black and blue marlin by commercial operators if the existing voluntary bans that were put into place in 1998 proved to be ineffective. Unfortunately, and as occasionally happens, a small number of commercial operators ignored this voluntary ban, and they ignored it to their peril. As a result, we are seeing today legislation that will go a long way to protecting the black and blue marlin stocks from the commercial fisheries. This is not an issue of choosing the recreational fisher over the commercial fishing industry—CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Of course it is.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—It is not an issue at all, as the member for Kalgoorlie would know. The reality is that the market aspect for black and blue marlin is very limited. The taste and texture of those fish are very poor commercial attributes.Under this new law, any operator who does catch blue or black marlin will be required to return them to the sea, whether those fish are dead or alive. If indeed they keep those fish they will be liable to a fine of 125 units at $110, which would make it a fine of up to $13,750. This will not apply to commercial charter boat operators or recreational fishers.The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industry, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs produced a report, Managing the Commonwealth Fisheries: the last frontier. Part of the debate and discussion focused on the need for the protection of billfish. It is no secret that I put in a dissenting report because, simply, I do not believe that protecting black and blue marlin should be where the legislation ends. I have pushed in my dissenting report that all billfish should be excluded from commercial fishing. The fishing pressure that these fish are subjected to is extreme. The issue is that black and blue marlin cannot differentiate between a bait set down for striped marlin and baits that are set down for the broadbill swordfish.On 20 August 1996, in reply to a question, Senator Parer said that from tables in the AFMA report produced on 1995 logbook returns on domestic longlining, there were 523 black marlin captured, 1,392 striped marlin, 259 blue marlin, 299 sailfish and 365 spearfish. If we take only the black and blue marlin on domestic longlines as a by-catch of the striped marlin, discounting the swordfish, sailfish and spearfish, we have 56 per cent by-catch. If we take into account the foreign longliners, the logbook showed that 8,693 broadbill swordfish were captured, 537 black marlin, 5,208 striped marlin, 1,167 blue marlin and 1,185 sailfish. If we look at the black and blue marlin only as by-catch against the captures of striped marlin, it is 33 per cent. A total of 2,486 black and blue marlin which were captured, compared to 6,600 striped marlin. As by-catch, that is ridiculous. And this is where I disagree with this bill. To say that it is okay to catch striped marlin and broadbill swordfish and not apply it to all such species tells the fishermen that they can take these fish—which will be dead when they are brought in on the longline—and cast them off as by-catch. It is a waste of a resource, and we do not want to see those fish captured by commercial fishermen.So the only solution—and it is what I have stated in my dissenting report—is to ban all commercial fishing for billfish. Black and blue marlin are not able to swim around and look at the bait and say, `Well, that one is not for me, that is for a striped marlin.' That just does not happen. But if we stop commercial fishing for all billfish, they will go back to using the type of hooks that will not set in the billfish's mouth and therefore we will reduce the incidental by-catch.I only need to remind the House of a newspaper article on Friday, 4 July 1997 in the Daily Telegraph with a headline which said, `Fertiliser. That's what they made yesterday from our most famous fish.' It was an article by Letitia Rowlands and Simon Benson:They are the most magnificent of fish, growing to more than 4m and weighing 700kg, but these marlin were dumped on a Sydney loading dock yesterday—to be made into fertiliser and cat food.The four tonnes of rare and protected marlin—an icon of both marine conservation and game fishing—were dumped at the Sydney Fish Markets at midday.The waste amounts to 115 carcasses of precious juvenile black and blue marlin, which had been rotting for more than 12 months in a cold store because they were impossible to sell.Something needed to be done and this goes partway to doing it. The six-year voluntary ban did not work, as evidenced by that statement in the Daily Telegraph . But I think that the minister needs to examine this issue more closely and take the step—which I know will affect commercial fishers—to protect our marine environment and these billfish. The total numbers of these in 1995 were 1,060 black marlin, 1,426 blue marlin, 6,600 striped marlin, 1,484 sailfish and 11,074 broadbill swordfish. That is not the kilos; that is just the numbers of fish. That is a lot of wastage coming from our ocean.This act will come into force by amendments to the Fisheries Management Act under item 1 of schedule 1 by inserting section 15A. This section will prohibit the taking of black or blue marlin, unless that person holds a scientific permit authorising the taking, or the fish is taken in the course of recreational charter boat fishing. The penalty for not complying with the ban is 125 units, at $110 per unit. However, it is a defence to a prosecution under this section if you are able to satisfy the court that steps were taken to immediately return the fish to its natural environment.By-catch is a major problem. We have heard through reports that the average by- catch can run at about 30 per cent. So of every 100 tonnes of fish that comes up, irrespective of the type of fishery, 30 tonnes is just by-catch. It is a waste of resource.How did this legislation come about? It was partly as a result of a pre-election commitment by the government, partly due to the report done by the rural committee, and also because in October 1995 Senator O'Chee raised many times in the Senate the continual catching of marlin in area E and the processing of those. They were trying to pretend the blue marlin that they were boating were striped marlin—because it is extremely difficult to tell the difference when they are not alive, but headed and finned carcasses.It was also due to community pressure and consultation between the recreation and commercial fisheries. And for that, I would pay credit to people like Bob Lowe, Col Earl, Geoff Woolley, all members of the executive of the Game Fishing Association of Australia. They spent a lot of time and effort down here lobbying, talking to people and trying to bring about a result that works for everybody. Senator O'Chee has previously told the Senate that the value to tourism in Far North Queensland fisheries of marlin is over $30 million a year.During a speech I made on 19 March 1997 on the Export Market Development Grants Bill 1997, I spoke about the Port Stephens game fishing competition and how it was estimated that, over a 10-day period, $16 million was injected into our local economy and 1,032 marlin were tagged and released back into the ocean for only 19 kills. That works out at around $16,000 per fish. That is a large injection of dollars into our local economy. It is important to tourism. Game fishing is one of the highest dollar earners in tourism in Australia. It requires very little effort, but it gives a major return.Another announcement that I am rather pleased the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, made last year was where $140,000 was allocated for investment in a research project into black marlin off North Queensland. You may wonder why the member for Paterson in the Hunter Valley is interested in a marlin fishery off Queens land. It is because one of the breeding grounds that allows the fish to come down through the east coast of Australia. A lot of them are caught, tagged and released off my electorate.The CSIRO project is funded through the Fisheries and Development Corporation program. It studies the migration patterns and behaviours of the black marlin throughout the north-west Coral Sea. This program will also involve a level of interaction between commercial and recreational fisheries. The investment will be backed up by further funds and resources to be provided by the CSIRO Division of Marine Research. Interestingly, this research will involve inserting two types of tags into these fish to assess their movement. One is a pop-up radio tag, which will be fitted with an electronic release so that after a pre-determined time it will float to the surface and transmit a radio signal. This will indicate the point-to-point movement of marlin between the time of tagging and the time that radio signal is received. The second type of tagging arrangement is a pop-up satellite linked archival type which can transmit a range of information, including swimming depth and water temperature over time.Our recreational fishing industry played an absolutely key role in this research by tagging marlin in October and November last year. As we gather this information, perhaps we can then start to assemble a plan of management so that these fish are not overexploited. When considering overexploitation, we only have to see what happened to the orange roughy and the gemfish fisheries in a very short time. The reality is that it is something that cannot be ignored.Another point about fisheries that I would like to bring to the attention of the House concerns white pointer sharks. The Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) has placed a ban on the capture of white pointer sharks. I can understand that ban: they are an endangered species. The ban does apply to game fishing. The ban has been applied because of the risk associated with the fish not being able to swim off freely after release. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, fishing is very strong in your electorate around Coffs Harbour. There is a lot to be gained in fisheries research by tagging fish and then at some time later recovering those tags. I have put to the minister that one does not know what type of shark has taken the bait until it is brought to the boat. Given that the shark has been caught and it has fought, and been brought to the boat, it is logical to put a tag into that shark so that at some time, if it is washed up, captured by other means or it is dead on a long line, the tag can be recovered. Because there is an estimate of the size and an exact location of the place where the initial tag was put on, we can perhaps better understand the migration patterns of these endangered species.I ask the ministers to re-examine this and to start thinking about the long-term study aspect of it. As I said, it will not result in any less capture of these fish. They will be caught and brought to the boat and then they will be let go, so it only makes commonsense to put a tag into them.The second part of this bill relates to the prawn fisheries. It repeals a 1995 package, as requested by the industry. It removes the Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995, the Prawn Export Charge Act 1995 and the Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995. My colleague and friend Teresa Gambaro, the member for Petrie, has been instrumental in helping the minister work through this issue. This decision will save the prawn operators an average of about $800 per year. This decision was put together after consultation with the industry and where a plebiscite showed that 85 per cent of those voting opposed the levies. The response rate to that plebiscite was 66 per cent.The industry pays two compulsory export promotion levies: the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge. In the year 1996-97 the Australian Prawn Promotion Association raised about $400,000 through these levies. The prawn industry did not support these levies. Of the 480 prawn operators, only 46 per cent said that they supported the levy, and 266 voted against it. The vote was all done above board. The plebiscite was conducted by Coopers and Lybrand.On 1 January 1998 these levies will come to an end. The levies will be half the amount for the half financial year 1997-98. We only have to look at the track record of this government in promoting the export of products overseas, particularly our seafood exports, to understand that it is important to promote our products offshore. The industry did not feel that this promotion levy was getting the returns off the investment that it was putting up. They are doing it their own way, and they will live or die by their own recommendations. This is well received by government as it gets the government out of the way of industry members doing what they do best, which is running their own businesses and being responsible for their own industry and how it stacks up on the export performance market.I commend this bill to the House. I note that the opposition is supporting the bill. At the end of the day, it is commonsense. Our fisheries are well worth protecting and they are worth investing in. They are about the future. If we overexploit our fisheries today, there will be nothing to harvest tomorrow.11:08:005389Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—I rise to speak on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 as I represent undoubtedly the greatest fishing province within Australia, the electorate of Kalgoorlie, which includes some of the best game fishing areas.I firstly wish to congratulate the government on heeding the voice of the prawn fishing and export industry in removing the prawn boat levy, levied per boat metre, and the prawn export charge levied at $0.02 per kilogram net weight after a five-tonne threshold is reached. The government consulted with the industry and conducted a plebiscite, to which 67 per cent of industry responded with an 85 per cent affirmation that industry wished to discontinue the levy. That is an amazingly democratic undertaking by the government, and it will be retrospective to January 1998.However, I find in another matter the government has been totally inconsistent as they saw fit to introduce draconian legislation in March 1998 which imposes a 0.01 per cent kilogram levy on all seafood exported to conduct a seafood residue survey which industry never sought or agreed to pay. The inconsistency lies in the fact that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, said in his second reading speech that:. . . levies should only be imposed on an industry if the levies have substantial industry support, and there is significant market failure . . . John Anderson has forced the forced the seafood residue levy on industry because it is `in the national interest'. It has been introduced at the behest of AQIS.This is another example of AQIS, an arm of government, introducing disincentives to seafood exporters, some of whom operate on marginal profits. There has been no real evidence tendered that, without the seafood residue survey, our seafood would not be accepted on the European market. To my knowledge, there is no indication that our seafood caught wild has been rejected by the marketplace or AQIS.I am reminded of the stupidity that existed in the old Wool Corporation when they went down the road of infinitely testing our wool and therefore giving our customers reasons for discounting prices where previously they had taken the wool on its face value. Undoubtedly this led to a reduction in price for our wool.I also note another inconsistency in that in the peanut industry we have actually raised the admissible level of cadmium to accommodate the high cadmium levels of imported Chinese peanuts. No doubt this is another example of the government wishing to play on that level playing field.It is my belief that AQIS should concentrate on more effective and extensive screening of our imports and not setting up barriers for our own export industry. Or is this another example of the federal government kowtowing to international pressure for uniformity and expecting industry to pay for their ideology?The seafood residue levy should be immediately removed, given the state of the Asian economy, our largest market for seafood. In Western Australia alone, crayfish sales to Japan are down 10 per cent, which equates to some $17 million in loss of income.The other amendment which will prohibit the commercial taking of black and blue marlin in the Australian fishing zone is simply legitimising bans already voluntarily introduced by commercial long-line fishermen. The government endorsed the ban at the request of the charter boat industry, which wishes to ensure its own viability. Contrary to what previous speakers have said, the ban was largely successful, and it was effected by the industry adopting line levels and hook settings to limit the by-catch of marlin. I notice the previous speaker, the honourable member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin), in talking about by-catch percentages, said that these trawls are actually set for pelagic fish, not just for billfish, and as a by-catch it is simply that, as a total, there is a much smaller percentage than is actually quoted.The major change facing commercial fishing is that they are now compelled to return incidental catches of marlin to sea dead or alive, a policy which in other fisheries with less effective catching techniques is illogical and wasteful. I bring to mind the South East Trawl Fishery where they have a totally illogical, irrational situation where fishermen are forced to return by-catch to sea, most of which will be dead on return to the sea. It is an extremely wasteful process, does nothing to conserve the fishing stock and, of course, it is very damaging to the financial viability of the South East Trawl Fishery. Some of the bureaucrats have actually recognised that the only feature of this requirement is to put a structural hindrance in the way of the South East Trawl fishermen.Commercial fishermen now face fines of up to $13,750 should they land or sell marlin. The previous speaker alluded to the fact that these blue and black marlin were not acceptable on the market, that they had no real commercial value, so there is absolutely no doubt that the voluntary ban was generally working. In my view, this is just another example of governments pretending to do things, of making it look as though they are actually doing something—although I think there was pressure from the game fish operators. There is still one undecided factor within the amendment—that is, who will pay AFMA's estimated $66,000 administration costs to enforce the prohibition on marlin? It would be outrageous to expect commercial operators to pay for the administration of the ban which most had previously adhered to. The long-line industry already pays numerous charges and levies to catch and sell fish, and it is incongruous that the government would even consider imposing a levy on industry to not catch fish when they are not even deriving an income from that resource.As the member for Paterson pointed out, if the game fishing industry is such a lucrative and big industry, if anyone should pay for this ban, it should be them. It is quite clear that there has been no consultation with the fishing industry about the payment of this money. I certainly hope the government's intention is not to try to levy the commercial industry for this particular ban.In general, I support this legislation as I think it is sensible legislation. As I said earlier, I am concerned about this residue survey. Australia developed atomic resonance testing, and we are the world leader in it. With this method, you can actually detect elements down to one in a quadrillion. I fear that what will happen is that we will get things showing up in these tests and people will say, `Look there, we must discount your prices for this,' when in actual fact it has no bearing at all on the health value of the product.My mind goes back, of course, to the big dieldrin scare, which saw dieldrin taken off the market, to the enormous disadvantage of the Australian sugarcane industry. Had the Americans tested their own product with the vigour with which they were testing ours, they would of course have come up with much higher levels. But, with the advent of this very sophisticated testing equipment, we are going to find these microscopic quantities which cannot possibly do any harm. I see no logic in performing these tests other than at the behest of AQIS to be seen to be doing something scientific. I believe it will be detrimental to industry. It certainly has not been called for, and certainly we should not be doing it until the rest of the world is applying those same tests to the same industry. This sort of nonsense is very detrimental to our primary industries, and it is something that the government should be stopping, not accelerating as it is doing in this bill.11:16:005391West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . My electorate of Bowman encompasses the beautiful Moreton Bay, which is one of Australia's foremost environmental areas, on the doorstep to south-east Queensland. It also supports an important fishing and boating community and is a gateway to the waters of the Australian fishing zone.The bay itself is recognised as one of the most significant breeding grounds in Australia for a variety of fish, crustaceans and marine life. The bay also boasts a substantial colony of dugong and a large population of dolphins. However, with increased usage of the bay for recreational, tourism and industrial purposes, it is important that proper management of the bay and beyond be considered.The proposed amendment to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 will prohibit the commercial taking of black marlin and blue marlin in the Australian fishing zone. The government's amendment has been introduced in response to disputes between recreational or charter operators, who fish for black marlin and blue marlin, and commercial long-line operators, who take the species as by-catch. This legislation fulfils our 1996 election promise to impose a mandatory ban on the taking of black marlin and blue marlin if and when the voluntary code proved to be ineffective. The decision is one that protects both the long-term future of the fishing industry as a whole and the viability of the recreational and charter industries.Black marlin and blue marlin are prized by game fishers but are occasionally caught by commercial fishing operators. Both the game fishing industry and the commercial fishing industry are valuable, and this government is providing a framework in which they can coexist, complementing each other rather than working against each other.Although black marlin and blue marlin have little value for commercial operators as there is no domestic or export market for them, these species are the basis for the viability of charter operators. Commercial fishing operators who catch black marlin and blue marlin will be required by law to return them to the sea, whether the fish are dead or alive. The penalty for breaking the law will be a fine of up to $13,750. Charter boat operators, recreational fishermen and the holders of scientific permits will be exempt from the prohibition.Many fishermen are responsible and respect our waters. Some have contacted my office, concerned for the future viability of the southern Moreton Bay environs. One charter boat operator in my electorate, who is a member of the Game Fishing Association in Queensland, said he was pleased to see that this government had listened to, and acted upon, his concerns and the concerns of the industry. On several occasions my constituent has expressed concern about the open slaughter of black marlin and blue marlin and the apparent lack of respect for the voluntary ban. This charter boat operator, like many others in my electorate, was concerned that this kind of slaughter would send all the charter operators to the wall.When charter boat operators have built their businesses on the basis that black, blue and, in some cases, striped marlin are available, we must do everything within our power to keep this industry viable and to prevent further depletion of marlin stocks. We have listened to these concerns, and I welcome moves by this government to legislate to ensure the future of this industry and the future of these small businesses.Another of the major problems in my electorate has been the continuous threat of unlimited access to all varieties of sea life. It would seem that some fishermen have little regard for the future viability of the bay. As reported in the Courier-Mail recently, excessive takes of prawns have been dealt with effectively in the local courts. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the Queensland Department of Primary Industries' Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol, who are cracking down on people disobeying fishing laws by prawn trawling in closed waters.The proposed amendments to the Prawn Export Charge Act 1995, the Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995 and the Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995 further protect the prawn industry. They implement a decision by this government to cease the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge as of 1 January 1998. The acts introduced by the previous government give legal force to a government industry scheme to promote Australian sea-caught prawns in overseas markets using the funds raised.While I strongly support moves for industry and government to join forces to promote the local product, I cannot and do not support a levy which, from all available research, is not supported by the majority of levy payers. The Australian Prawn Promotion Association recommended that the rate of the boat levy be zero and the amount of export charge be 2c a kilogram. Of the 66 per cent response rate to an industry plebiscite, 85 per cent of prawn operators opposed the levies. Only 46 operators said they supported the levies, compared with 266 who voted against them. If this levy is simply adding a financial burden to prawn operators—an average of $800 per year—I applaud the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) on his decision to abolish the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge.As I have outlined today, and on many other occasions in this House, I welcome moves to protect fish stocks and the marine environment. I also welcome and support the government's policy to remove unwanted and unnecessary levies from our primary industries. I commend the bill to the House.11:22:005392Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I do not normally speak on bills concerned with prawns, as most of the prawns in Tasmania come out of frozen packets rather than our waters, but I would like to comment on a couple of aspects of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . The first aspect is the abolition of the two compulsory export promotion levies. Those levies were originally put in because the industry believed they would be useful. It has now decided that the levies and charges no longer satisfy the industry's needs. It is acceptable for the industry to reach that conclusion if it is not happy with the present arrangements.However, I think the industry is being a little short-sighted. Bringing Australian products to the attention of the rest of the world is more important now than at any other time. We are fighting for our position in the trade argument and, used sensibly, these levies could open windows of opportunity for the industry as a whole, without each individual marketer of prawns in Australia struggling to get a share of the market.Other primary producers have found levies most useful for putting their position in a professional way. It is not always possible, and not always necessary, for government to be involved in industry promotion. Self-help groups have proved very successful in achieving new markets by working together and using levies as a way of giving them the funding to do so. That has been very successful for many years now. I understand that the prawn people found their body's efforts inefficient and ineffective. Their exporters and fishers were each being charged a levy for the same prawns. That had something to do with it. They would have liked to have seen the body deal with that, rather than throwing away the opportunity of having the industry work together to promote their product in a certain way.Perhaps this will now give the industry an opportunity to re-look at the levies and come up with something that does not have a double charge in it and which would assist the system to have a product brand development situation. I hope those who have a direct contact with the industry will revisit this decision and see what else can be achieved. If the market fails to do anything about things at that stage, then it is often too late, so it is best to have an industry plan developing as markets develop.The other part of this bill relates to a proposal to prohibit the catch of blue and black marlin. That proposal came out of the recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs entitled Managing Commonwealth fisheries: the last frontier. Having been a member of the committee that brought down that report, I am glad that some of the recommendations of that report are being implemented.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—A good committee.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—As the honourable parliamentary secretary at the table said, it is a good committee, and it has done some fine work in this parliament. The recreational fishing industry has long been pushing for a prohibition on the taking of black marlin and blue marlin by commercial tuna operators. There is a need to protect both commercial and recreational charter fishing industries, as they are equally important to local economies around the coast of Australia. These industries are worth billions of dollars to the Australian economy every year, with $5 billion estimated for recreational fishing directly. When you add the cost of accommodation, fuel and all the other items that people buy to go fishing, that adds up to some incredible figures, which I have seen.It was also a great disappointment that the government cut funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation in the last budget. We need that sort of body to continue to do its research to answer scientific questions like where fish spawn, the number of fish there, their ages, where they migrate to and where they move around in the ocean. Those are the management tools that we use to manage fisheries. It is a backward step to cut the funding of the prime body that we put in place to give us some of those research answers. As this is the International Year of the Ocean, we could have done better than that as a country.In Tasmania, the southern bluefin tuna is an important species, and it is certainly seriously overfished, not so much in Tasmanian waters but in other areas around our coast and to the north. There is little scientific data that provides information to determine the development sustainability levels of this fishing. We need to do a lot more work in that area. We must maintain the research and management funding that is essential to an industry like that to keep it going. The cut to that research body of $3.612 million in the last budget was a real blow. I understand that it is going to decrease enormously the number of people that can be funded to do the research that is on the schedules. It is a great disappointment that that occurred.Recommendation No. 34 in The last frontier report brought down by the House of Representatives committee recommended that the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation receive its funding on the same basis as other industry research and development corporations to give greater certainty of funding levels on a year by year basis so that they can plan on a three-year or a five-year funding and research level. That certainly helps in planning the strategies of the research.It would have been a much better idea to do down that road rather than snatching money out of this body to meet the surplus in the last budget. Thus, in this International Year of the Ocean, we are cutting a major Australian industry; we are cutting research funds out of the major body that gives us some of the answers that we need to manage and enhance our fisheries.The other ridiculous situation we have is in relation to recreational fishermen and women. The amount of $80,000 to Recfish Australia was knocked out. That was an opportunity to pull recreational fishermen together so we can collect information that is really vitally important to enable us to look at what impact recreational fishermen have on fish stocks generally. We need to know that to be able to manage fishing in a proper and sensible manner. That information is such an important tool in the management of fisheries.While I am happy for this bill to pass, a number of questions need to be resolved about marketing and research. I hope that it is not just a couple of big players in this prawn industry who gain from this and the small people miss out—the big ones do the research, know where the industry is going and have their plans, and everybody else gets chopped up when the industry takes a nose dive. I accept the responsibility that the industry itself has wanted to reach this conclusion. I just hope in the future that they will take maybe a broader look at the questions they have resolved.11:33:005394Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—I rise to support the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 , which has two purposes. First, it repeals Labor's 1995 legislation which imposed a levy on the prawn industry. Secondly, it prohibits the commercial fishing of black and blue marlin in the Australian fishing zone.Since 1988 there has been a voluntary ban on the catching of blue and black marlin. There is no market for these fish. However, they have a large following in the commercial game fishing industry. It has come to the attention of the government through a House of Representatives committee inquiry into Commonwealth fisheries that a small number of commercial operators are ignoring this ban. Therefore, the Commonwealth decided to enforce the ban to prevent the further depletion of marlin stock. This is in line with our 1996 election commitment to impose the ban if it was proven that the voluntary ban was ineffective. Of course, the collection of marlin for scientific reasons or through legitimate charter or recreational fishing activities is still allowable.We have also included a defence to a prosecution should a party be able to prove that steps were immediately taken to return, to its natural environment, any marlin that was accidentally caught. The bill imposes a fine of 125 units or $13,750 for someone found guilty of commercially fishing blue or black marlin in the Australian fishing zone.As mentioned, this legislation also impacts on the prawn industry, and it is this aspect of the bill that I would like to focus on today. In 1995 the Labor government introduced the Prawn Boat Levy Act, the Prawn Export Charge Act and the Prawn Export Promotion Act. This package of legislation imposed a compulsory fee on commercial prawn fishing boats and an export charge on sea-caught prawns. The legislation package also provided for the collection, management and expenditure of the levied funds.The boat levy was applied at different rates depending on the size of the vessel and ranged from $50 for a ship 10 to 15 metres long up to $600 for a ship measuring at least 20 metres long. The export changes for prawns exported on or before 31 December 1997 was 2c per kilogram net weight of exports of wildstock prawns payable only after a threshold of 5,000 kilograms was reached. These levies cost the average operator around about $800 a year and raised approximately $400,000 a year for the Australian Prawn Promotion Association, the APPA.The coalition government believes that levies of this type should be compulsory only if there is significant industry support or the industry needs assistance due to a severe failure in the market. A group of commercial prawn operators made representations criticising the levy to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, in late 1996. The minister listened to their concerns and commissioned a plebiscite of the industry, run by Coopers and Lybrand, which showed 85 per cent of respondents opposed the fees. The minister decided to repeal the legislation based on industry concerns.However, I must point out that APPA will continue to carry out its role funded by the voluntary support of the operators and accumulated levies held by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. The government supports the continued role of APPA. However, we are not prepared to compel operators to fund its activities.The minister subsequently announced the abolition of the prawn boat levy and prawn export charge from 1 January 1998. This was partially implemented by amending the prawn export promotion levies and charges regulation to set the levy at zero from 1 July 1998 and divided the levy payment into two parts over this period. This payment is set at half of the prescribed rate.This legislation will cancel the levy payment from 1 January to 30 June 1998 and set a final levy period so that no levy can be imposed from 1 January 1998. Due to technical difficulties with the definition of a levy period, it is not possible to abolish the levy by regulation. Consequently, this legislation is before the House today. The repeal bill will take effect from 2001 in order to ensure the recovery of unpaid levy charges.This legislation is of great interest to me personally and of significant importance to the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory economy has grown by 4.7 per cent in 1997-98 and is estimated by the Territory Treasury to grow at 6.5 per cent over 1998-99.Access Economics predicts the Territory's annual average growth at about 4.5 per cent over the next four years. The value of Territory exports will be worth $1.2 billion in 1997-98. This is a fall from the 1996-97 level of about 2.4 per cent. This is due in part to the Territory's live cattle export markets shrinking because of the Asian currency crisis. While cattle production was up by about 12 per cent, the decline in our live cattle trade of 53 per cent over the last year because of the financial difficulties in Asia has impacted on our overall export levels. I know the cattle industry in the Territory is working hard to secure new markets for exports and I commend them on their efforts.However, things are looking good in other rural export industries; in particular, the rapidly expanding aquaculture industry. Barramundi, mud crabs, pearls and prawns are all established or developing aquaculture industries which are providing export benefits to the Territory.It may surprise some members to know that the largest markets for overall Territory exports is North America, which takes 32 per cent of all exports. Japan and North-East Asia take 16 per cent each, while South-East Asia and Europe take 15 per cent each. Rural industries and fisheries account for 4.9 per cent of the gross state product. The preliminary estimate for the gross value of production in the rural and fishing industries for 1997-98 is $344 million, an increase of 12 per cent over 1996. This includes a significant increase of 29 per cent in the value of aquaculture industries.There are approximately 400 fishing licences, both Commonwealth and Territory issued, for commercial fishing industry operations in the Northern Territory and adjacent waters. This means jobs for an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 people involved in the onshore fishing and processing industries in the Northern Territory.The Northern Territory fishing industry has the highest per capita value of production of fisheries in Australia and generates inputs of about $257 million into the national economy. The Territory's commercial fishing industry is dominated by wildstock prawns, with a developing market in aquaculture and prawning. The value of the industry was approximately $118 million in 1996-97; of this, 80 per cent was wildstock prawns and pearls. Aquaculture of species other than pearls is in the developmental stage, with prawns and barramundi being commercially farmed since 1996.The Territory prawn industry is large by Australian standards. Stock caught in the Northern Territory section of the northern prawn fishery represents about 25 to 35 per cent of the value of all Australian prawn production.Large prawn stocks were discovered in the Gulf of Carpentaria in the mid-1960s. The prawning industry expanded rapidly, and in 1973 there were 355 trawling vessels licensed in the northern prawn fishery between Darwin and Cape York. There were two processing plants, one at Darwin and the other on Groote Eylandt. Production reached its peak in 1983, but a market downturn, combined with overfishing of stocks in the mid-1980s, led to the closure of the processing plants.The world price for prawns came under increasing pressure from the rising world production of aquaculture prawns, which also impacted on our local wildstock industry. The industry faced substantial rationalisation and the prawn fleet was significantly reduced. This was the greatest adjustment faced by the Territory prawning industry and there are now only 125 trawlers in the northern prawn fishery, but most are dedicated to the six-month prawn season and have more catching power than the trawlers operating in the 1970s. In fact, the CSIRO estimates a five per cent annual increase in fishing power due to better technology and bigger boats.The prawn industry in the Territory is part of the northern prawn fishery, which is managed by the Commonwealth. The fishery contains a number of businesses of varying sizes, the larger ones also being involved in the processing and marketing of the product. Prawning takes place between April and June and August to December. Most of the fleet concentrates on harvesting banana prawns during the first part of the year and tiger prawns in the latter part of the year.Most of the Territory's prawn stock is sold to Japan but reaches there in a variety of forms via a range of marketing arrangements. In the early days of the industry, prawns were usually sold to processing plants in bulk for processing. These days, due to the increase in technologically advanced boats, a lot of grading and packaging is done at sea. Most of the fleet is modern and well equipped to quickly freeze the catch in order to meet the exacting requirements of the Japanese market.If there were a facility to be able to airlift our prawn stock out of Darwin on a regular basis to the Japanese market, there is a general opinion that the amount of, say, banana prawns sold to that market would certainly increase, because it is well known that the Japanese like their seafood stocks to be as fresh as possible. If there were a reliable and available air charter capacity, I am quite sure we would be able to increase the level of export of that product to Japan.The export arrangements are dictated by the demands of the market. I know that some companies are involved in very sophisticated marketing deals. I understand further that in Japan they are even asking some of our exporters to design small gift packages so that prawns can be put into gift boxes and then, in turn, they can go straight into the marketplace via the retail outlets.The aquaculture industry in the Territory is large by Australian standards but is dominated by pearls. However, a number of established interstate prawn aquaculture companies have expressed interest in setting up operations in the Territory. This could result in an industry worth anywhere between $30 million and $40 million annually, within five to 10 years.One of the inhibiting factors in the growth of the aquaculture industry is native title. Some people would say, `How does native title interfere with fishing or aquaculture production?' Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, you may or may not be aware that there is a native title claim lodged over two-thirds of the city of Darwin. That is not the only native title claim in existence. There are other claims which pick up various other areas in close proximity to Darwin where good water and land are available for the further expansion of the aquaculture industry. That aside, hopefully in the very near future the question of native title will be resolved. That will then open the way for the aquaculture industry to invest further and set up other operations and give greater impetus to the prawn and aquaculture industries.The aquaculture industries have a much better control over the quality of the stock they farm. Quality of wildstock prawns can be reduced by catch capacities exceeding the freezer space on board the trawler and prawns can die during long trawls due to the deterioration caused by warm tropical waters. Prawn aquaculture has the capacity of being able to farm the daily requirement, depending obviously on the size of the farm and the quantity of stock available. But, as I mentioned a few moments ago, if we were going to be able to develop an export market of freshly caught prawns, the operator would be able to take one tonne or two tonnes of packed prawns to the Darwin International Airport and put them on an aircraft and they would be in Japan within seven hours. The stock would be iced. The boxes would be opened and the prawns that would arrive in Japan would be very fresh. That is very important. The stock farming of prawns certainly has greater potential than wildstock prawns.Northern Territory waters are relatively free from pollution and large coastal populations. This clean image of our fish stocks will attract premium prices in the export market. Despite the Asian crisis, the price for farmed prawns was relatively strong through the second half of 1997. This, in part, is because aquaculture producers can target their operations to specific consumer demands and can harvest at optimum time to maximise quality. The harvesting time is very important. Whether they harvest at 4 o'clock in the afternoon or harvest at 5 o'clock in the morning has an impact on the eventual quality of the prawns harvested.Another important offshoot of the success of the prawning industry in the Territory is the development of trawling boat infrastructure created in Darwin over the last decade. Trawlers now have access to repair and maintenance facilities in Darwin. This means that they no longer have to return to Cape York or Fremantle, which saves fuel and staffing costs. Darwin also provides a ship facility for trawlers to use in the event of cyclones forming off our coast.Members who have been in this place for quite some time would be aware that, in the old days, the fleets used to sail out of Fremantle and do their work in the Gulf of Carpentaria and other associated waters, or you would have teams of trawlers coming in from Karumba in Queensland and other areas on the Queensland coast. After they did their work and got their harvest, they would eventually have to return back to base for repairs and maintenance. The high cost of fuel in those days certainly made it very difficult for the prawn operators to make what one would say would be a better profit. These days they are able to commit their fleet to Darwin and operate within the Darwin waters, do their catch, return to Darwin, lay up their boats for the season, maintain them, give their crews a rest and everybody is happy.There was a former Labor member in this House who was defeated in 1984 who then ran against me in the 1987 campaign. I happened to be the Northern Territory Minister for Ports and Fisheries at the time and had created this development of a safe haven for prawn trawlers in Darwin. Part of the campaign of this former member was to say that this was going to be a white elephant. He had a go at me as the member for Casuarina, as I was in those days. But I am very pleased to advise that that was not a white fridge, so to speak. It became very popular. In fact, the size of that facility is likely to be increased at any stage.The government's decision to listen to operators and remove Labor's compulsory levies leaves me optimistic about the future of the Northern Territory prawn industry. The optimism is tempered somewhat by the uncertainty that still exists over the status of native title and Aboriginal sea rights over the Top End. There is some contention over the definition of the tidal zones and the Northern Land Council, as usual, is grandstanding over access rights. The sooner the opposition starts thinking about national interests and helps us resolve the native title mess the better it will be for all Australian business, especially the Territory's prawning industry.This legislation is good news for prawn operators. It removes Labor's compulsory levies while leaving in place a well funded promotional organisation. It also protects the blue marlin and the black marlin from illegal fishing, which is great news for the environment. Another very interesting topic that has made the national news in the last 24 hours is the advent of the inland railway. With its charter from Melbourne and picking up the eastern seaboard ports of Sydney and Brisbane and through Australia's northern interior into Tennant Creek and up to Darwin, it will certainly help and complement the Alice Springs to Darwin line, which continues on to Adelaide. It is certainly going to help our aquaculture and prawning industry.At the moment, when they do discharge their cargo in Darwin, most of the time it is put on the back of refrigerated cargo semitrailers and sent off to the south. This proposed rail link, for which we are now getting $100 million out of the Federation Fund, from Darwin to the Alice and then Adelaide is certainly going to provide a boom for our prawn exporters. If the other railway, after a 12-month feasibility study, is proven to be successful and they can get it off the ground, we are certainly going to be able to get our prawn stock from the Gulf of Carpentaria to Darwin and the eastern seaboard much more quickly and much more reliably than with the current transport arrangements.With those few words, I support the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998. I believe it certainly is going to be beneficial to the industry. The industry is going to save a few dollars, which will benefit it, but, at the same time, it is taking part of the bureaucratic process out of another industry. The intention of the government is to lessen the red tape for small business to allow them to get on with the job and to produce and create jobs for Australians.11:53:005398Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—I, as an individual, have had a very long association with prawn fisheries within Australia. Whilst a lot of that association directly resulted from my time as a resident of the town of Carnarvon in north-west Western Australia, I still have a close association, through my electorate, with the fishing port of Geraldton. A number of residents and fishermen in that area have licences to fish up in the Gulf of Carpentaria in the Northern Territory, referred to so eloquently by the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas).Whilst the town that I lived in, which is a major prawn fishery, is not in my electorate today, I still have this interest which I want to refer to along with the interests of those particular people. When the fishery was first established in Carnarvon, as the then shire president and an active businessman in the town I was active in assisting those who brought that industry to Carnarvon.Nevertheless, I want to commence my comments on a more generic basis because this Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 is groundbreaking legislation. It is the first time, to my recollection, that the grassroots of an industry has been consulted and that one of the many levies imposed by this parliament on various industries has been removed at their request.From time to time in our years in opposition, you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, and, I am sure, the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop), who is at the table, would have heard me stand in the party room, after having had a representation from the shadow minister in those years gone by that there was a request for a new levy on some aspect of primary industry which, of course, had the `support of the industry', and say, `Whom are we talking about? Are we talking about a few industry bureaucrats, or are we talking about the people who actually produce the product?' Of course, the answer earnestly given by the shadow minister was, `Of course it was the industry bureaucrats'—but they are `the industry'.More and more we are discovering that the grassroots not only do not appreciate people taking their money but are questioning the effectiveness of its expenditure and are demonstrating less and less that they have confidence in these bodies that constantly contact parliament asking that their membership, or the people they claim to represent, be taxed for the purpose of their own activities. This particular piece of legislation, in removing two levies—the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge—brings to our attention the process that has been applied.I have to say that the people whom I represent operating their prawn trawlers out of Geraldton wish to have this levy retained. They lobbied me, and I gave considerable acknowledgment to their concerns that this particular levy was of value to the wider prawn fishing industry. That was certainly their right. My response, of course, was that they were ringing the wrong fellow, that they should be contacting all of their colleagues within the industry and putting that point of view because we as a government had changed the rules relative to the application of these levies so that there would be a process of consultation with the grassroots of the industry. I told them that, in this case, where a levy was already in existence, we would accept representations from people who thought that there was no need for the levy, that it had no value, and, as has been done in this case, conduct a plebiscite of interested parties to establish the facts.That is the process that has been followed in this case, and the evidence is to be found in the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) where he points out that not only did the plebiscite take place but also, in sending people ballot papers, they were given comprehensive yes and no cases—meaning that my constituents who wished to have the levy retained had equal rights to communicate with those who were going to vote as did those who wanted the levy removed. That, to me, is democracy at work. When one thinks that all of this money was being raised, arguably to assist the industry, surely the people who were involved would know whether it was or it was not.The minister tells us that, as a consequence, 67 per cent of those eligible to vote did vote. Anybody who has had an experience in local government such as I have would know that, in a voluntary voting context, that is a very high vote. So it is arguable that people did respond in substantial numbers.The other piece of evidence is that 85 per cent of those who voted voted to remove the levy. The minister points out that, as government should, it does retain the right to be the final arbiter in this issue. The minister was not compelled to respond positively to the results of the referendum but, of course, that is our promise to the people concerned. The minister has responded by introducing this legislation to the House, and I congratulate the government consequently.My constituents are great contributors to the politics of the industry, and I would like to record some of their names. I am talking of Bert Boschetti and his wife, Julie, of Latitude Fisheries. They are people who are constantly bringing forward issues relative to the efficiency of the prawn trawling industry and the crayfish industry, in which they and their family are actively involved. One of their daughters is now a licensed skipper of a cray boat operating out of Geraldton and I think that is almost a first, but it just shows the family's commitment. I have had some great opportunities from time to time to spend time socially with them and I can always be assured that, during that period, they will be arguing the case for conservation and efficient fishing and pointing out to me many aspects of the present Commonwealth fisheries regulations which they think could be improved. I might say that that is on both sides of the fence—that is, areas where the legislation is too restrictive and areas where it could be more efficient and produce a better result.I supported their position, and recently the state government of Western Australia, through the fisheries advisory council, advocated a 28 per cent reduction in the pots available for Western Australian cray fishermen. That reduction was needed because of the massive increases that have occurred in the efficiencies of catching crayfish, such as the GPS—the geostationary positioning system—which allows a fisherman to literally drop a craypot in the ocean and return to it the following day to within a metre. Those things have truly changed the efficiency of fishing and, with all the other electronic equipment available, it was necessary to reduce the number of pots that were in the water to protect that resource. The Boschettis led and supported the argument for a 28 per cent pot reduction. Others lobbied against that and the political decision taken in Western Australia was that pots be reduced by 18 per cent. I raise that point as a credit to the Boschettis who, in their view, thought the reduction should have been more. That shows their commitment to conservation within the fisheries.So it is very important that they had a view to retain the levy. I respected their view, but I cannot criticise the majority view of this particular plebiscite arrangement. I consequently encouraged the government to revisit many of the levies that are involved and that we collect year after year.Farmers in my electorate, due to a decision of farmer bureaucrats supported by the government of the day, have got an investment in the wheat industry of $250 million. They are called wheat industry funds. It was a straight-out two per cent levy. I opposed it bitterly. It was argued that it was needed for the privatisation of the Wheat Board so they would then have enough money to pay the `first advance'. Many of my farmers now have $100,000 plus tied up in this wheat industry fund, and that equals their first advance. So they are funding it themselves now. Many of them have to borrow money each year to put a wheat crop in while they have got all this money tied up, this two per cent of farm gate value. It was never necessary. It was promoted by a group of farmer bureaucrats who saw the opportunity to be captains of industry. Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have heard me in another place railing on this issue with little success.It all comes down to the same thing. It is not difficult today to conduct a plebiscite. When one talks about 50,000 wheat growers, one might think that would be more difficult than hundreds of prawn fishermen. The reality is that in both cases the situation is that, if people took some practical steps, such plebiscites could be conducted quite simply. I have made the point in many forums that this could be achieved by using local government polling arrangements. Quite a few of these plebiscites could be undertaken and collected on the day local governments have their polls. It is quite easy for those local authorities to maintain a register of the persons who are quite clearly wheat growers, prawn fishermen or whatever. Those persons could then cast their ballot and the cost would be no more than the cost of the ballot paper. So why not use that opportunity? Why is it that government frequently believes that it knows better?I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, after raising the wheat industry fund on behalf of the Australian Wheat Board for five years, I and the late John Panizza attempted to have a Senate inquiry into the operation of that fund; we were in opposition at the time. I wanted to know how it could make so much money, to tell you the truth, and I had some questions as to why that might be so. Let me tell you that the wheat industry bureaucracy, headed by the then chairman of the Wheat Board, Mr Clinton Condon, took us on and fought us bitterly about that inquiry. He went as far as to cancel all his overseas travel until it was knocked off. Unfortunately, he gained the support of certain members of parliament, whom I will not mention here today. I kept asking the question, `If you're doing so good for farmers, why is it that you don't want a Senate inquiry to be able to confirm that fact?' Quite clearly, they had things they preferred not be exposed.This is the other aspect of these levies. Nobody ever looks into them. We just keep collecting the money. We keep sending it to people all around Australia for research or whatever and we seldom have any proper audit. We check that they have spent the money, but we seldom have an efficiency audit to see to what extent these moneys extracted under the laws of Australia actually deliver advantages to the people they are supposed to help.I thought it pretty interesting that, in passing, the member for the Northern Territory talked about native title. I am delighted that negotiations continue, at least with the Independent Senator Harradine, as to the effects of native title and the ability to get some workable legislation. I remind the House that our legislation is about bringing native title into the general administration of land management within Australia. That is absolutely necessary if people are going to know that their investments stand. In my electorate I have 900 properties whose owners have recently discovered that the title they had considered absolutely secure is in fact wobbly.One constituent had an offer from an overseas company to buy his property for a price well and truly in excess of the market rate, but when the overseas buyer discovered that it was a perpetual lease, not freehold, and that it was subject to a much larger native title claim, they walked away from the deal. A lot of these properties just through uncertainty are unsaleable. That can bring great hardship to people if they have financial difficulties or whatever.It is similar in the fishing industry. It costs millions of dollars today to purchase and equip a prawn trawler for the Gulf operations. The fuel just to get to the Gulf runs into tens of thousands of dollars before you catch a fish. Yet many people who have never gone into the water further than up to their knees are claiming vast areas of the sea, are laying claims over these fishermen—who are licensed by the federal government—and are forcing them to go to court and spend their own valuable time and money to defend a right to fish those waters, a right that we have already issued in this parliament. We read of some of the more ridiculous claims of sacred sites under the water where people never went. This is just another aspect that has to be resolved. This government has to have the right to issue a fishing licence and to apply various conservation measures.I was interested to hear again this morning of the stupidity of the New South Wales government in issuing inland freshwater fishing licences, presumably in order to have some control over conservation of fishing stocks, and then telling us that Aboriginal people need not apply. It does not matter what your background or the colour of your skin is, if the reason for government intervention is conservation, why are some people not to be controlled by that? The same situation has applied in Canada with their salmon stocks, and it has created a mess. It has put their resource at risk. You cannot do that. You either have control or you do not.The member for the Northern Territory also chose to mention the cost of freight when people have to transport from these remote areas. There is the other challenge to this parliament—being opposed by the opposition—that is, having a sensible tax system. The member for the Northern Territory did not tell the House, but in every week that those freezer trucks operate, carting the prawns away from the people who are generating this great overseas income for our country, they pay $2,000 in tax to the federal government by way of fuel tax, wholesale sales tax, payroll tax to state governments, and so on. Of course, those operators have no choice but to charge those payments against the prawn trawler operator. To get that prawn catch back to the freezers in Geraldton is a week's trip. So, for 20 tonnes of prawns, $2,000 goes by way of indirect taxation straight to the Commonwealth government and adds to the cost in a very competitive market today—because fresh prawns are now in competition with farmed prawns in all the Asian regions. Then there are also the difficulties associated with their reduced buying power. We are adding to that burden and in fact driving some people out of business. It is pretty dumb to be the only country around the place that has a tax system that damages the ability of people to export. (Time expired)12:13:005401Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—The fishing industry in my neck of the woods is worth about $250 million to this nation. The North Queensland prawn industry alone creates income in excess of $100 million. So I am sure you can appreciate that it is a very valuable component of our economic base in Far North Queensland. Add to that the fact that every fisherman who takes out his boat has a crew of some four or five people and multiply that by some 135 prawn boats that are currently fishing in the northern prawn fishing region, and we are talking about a huge industry which provides major employment opportunities for the local community.That is just in direct employment. You can certainly double that figure with the associated employment that goes with the running of the fishing fleet. Yet, over the years, various governments have tied up our fishermen in so much red tape and paperwork that they hardly have the time to fling a net over the side of their boats. Along with the rules, regulations and quasi-government bodies have come levies and charges, until the family fisherman has to think twice about his future in the industry.If that is not enough, we have the rogue fishermen, those who do not pay for licences and who slide into the water and fill their boats with whatever they can grab. These are the raiders who, under the cover of night, clean out areas that regular fishermen have put off limits—the vital breeding grounds and nurseries for prawns and other shellfish. Fishermen like Les Lowe, who runs four boats out of Cairns and employs up to 50 people, I believe are the true environmentalists—sustainable use people, with responsible environmental practices because they know, better than anybody else, that to overfish any of their regions and to wipe out their nurseries is to wipe out their industry entirely.Les has been fishing in the Gulf since 1968. He learned his trade from his father, as a lot of them have. It is one of those businesses that seems to go from father to son—or father to daughter in some cases now. I note the comments by the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that the daughter of one of his constituents had taken over the skipper's licence, and we are seeing that more and more these days. It is good to see that both genders are now actively involved in this very important industry. Les himself had learned his trade from his dad, who started in 1949 in Byron Bay, so you can see that he is somebody who has been in the industry for a long time. There would be very little that anybody could teach him about fishing and his industry. Les is one of those people who quite frankly fears for the future of our industry.Corporations are starting to move into these areas—huge fishing companies, listed on the Stock Exchange and run by lawyers and accountants. These corporations are slowly but surely squeezing out the family fisherman—a man worried about his mortgage, about his nets and about his staff, a man who treats the waters not only as his livelihood but as that of his children and his grandchildren, who eventually will come on as well.As Les has put it, these big corporations lobby the government all the time. They got one fellow just to lobby the pollies, and this is certainly the case with a lot of these big organisations. They have the resources available to have full-time lobbyists, and there is no question that, at times, they can be very successful. They say what they want and they get it before we know what is going on. That is because the fishermen are too busy out there trying to make a living and do not have the time or the resources to be down here lobbying on their own behalf. Fishermen of North Queensland are concerned that the fishing corporations' first duty is to their shareholders and not to the fish and the fish stocks. I think that is a very legitimate concern and it is something that we should always keep in mind when we are considering any issues relating to this.Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to assure Les Lowe and his colleagues that this government is very much aware of their concerns about the northern prawn fisheries. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 before us today is, in my opinion, a move in the right direction. By abolishing the compulsory export promotion levy, we are not only going to save fishermen thousands of dollars but also going to cut out a very hefty amount of paperwork. As the member for O'Connor rightly put it: who supported this in the first place? It was introduced—or imposed—in 1995 by, I suggest, some bureaucrat or those accountants and lawyers who tend to find themselves operating these big corporations, but certainly not by the men and the women who are actually out there working, day in and day out, taking the risks and creating the wealth.When the plebiscite was held, there was a very good turnout—as I am sure you appreciate—of 67 per cent of all those eligible to vote. With a voluntary voting system, I think that is a very high turnout rate. Of that 67 per cent, 85 per cent opposed the levy. I suggest that a lot of those who voted, given such a high opposition to it, would have been the men and women who are working the boats—the mum-and-dad operations out there. That gave them an opportunity to have a say.Some of the prawn trawler fishermen whom I have spoken to were charged up to $900 for their boat and, as far as they were concerned, they could not see any tangible return for this fee. Prawns are a fairly popular type of seafood. To have to pay this to market those prawns seems like some sort of a free feed for the bureaucrats. Talk about lurks and perks—I wish somebody would dish me up a great feed of prawns. I must say I did participate in an excellent feed of prawns at one stage, and I can understand why people would flock to enjoy them, but I certainly do not think that this is something that should be imposed on our fishermen as an additional fee. I know the member for Petrie (Ms Gambaro) also fought very hard to have this removed, and I applaud her for that action.Guarding is starting to free up the costs and the paperwork imposed on men and women who I see as the guardians of our fishing industry, and guarding is what we must do, because we have the third largest fishing zone in the world. We have seen attacks by ships using driftnets. I call them the wall of death: they trail for about six kilometres or more and they kill at random. I think we need to be ever vigilant. I think it is because we have been very careful and because we generally have had responsible fishermen that we have not plundered this incredible natural resource and I think we are still the envy of the nation. Although the resource has been depleted in some areas, I believe that with responsible management we can maintain it for our future generations. At this point, I would like to take a moment to describe one of the most magnificent fish in the world. It is called the marlin. I recently met a woman who had swum with a marlin. She was scuba diving out in the Coral Sea. To this day, she describes her experience as the `most spiritual moment' in her life. She said that when she came out of the water and boarded the dive boat, someone said to her that she looked as though she had just seen God. Yet we kill them. You will not find a fisherman who will tell you that there is any reason to do so. Marlin are not table fish. Dead and cut up, they have no commercial value whatsoever except, maybe, as cat food or fertiliser. A marlin can grow to more than four metres and weigh up to 700 kilograms. An average marlin glows brightly with blue and purple bronze coloured bands on their body. They fade to black after death. That is when the lights go out. For the lucky few who have seen marlin underwater, it is an awesome sight.These amendments prevent the commercial fishing of our magnificent black and blue marlin. Not only does it prohibit the commercial taking of the marlin, but it also introduces hefty fines for those who care little for our wildlife. Unfortunately there are those in our community whose greed overrides the long-term responsibility that they have towards the community and their environment. This government imposed an earlier mandatory ban on the commercial fishing of marlin but, quite frankly, it has proved to be very ineffective. Cowboys—as I call these unlicensed and unprincipled raiders of our fishing grounds—continued to fish for marlin and to sell them basically for fertiliser. Our responsible licensed fishermen felt quite helpless about this as there was no real law that had been broken. That is not the case any more. This amendment puts into place legal prohibition and imposes a hefty fine of up to $14,000. Certainly, I think that is something they will have to consider now. If it does not prove an appropriate deterrent, then I would certainly encourage an even higher fine; although I would suggest that any returns they get for fertiliser or cat food from these magnificent fish would not be anywhere near the $14,000 they are likely to pay for every fish that they are caught with.I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Resources and Energy, Warwick Parer, for making a very firm commitment to the long-term future of our marlin. I certainly remember the time, in early 1996, when he addressed a number of fishermen up in my electorate of Leichhardt. He gave a commitment that he would fix the problem. He has certainly started to do that. He has not only acted to stop the unnecessary commercial fishing of our marlin but also resolved a very long-term conflict between two major and vital operators in our fishing industry in Far North Queensland. The conflict between long-line tuna fishermen in my area and the game fishing industry was, of course, about the catching of black and blue marlin for any reason. It is a rather interesting situation where our game fishing industry is worth some $230-odd million and, on the other hand, there is the very viable and necessary multi-million dollar commercial exporting operation in the long-line tuna industry. There was a lot of misinformation clogging the airwaves with charges of environmental rape coming from both sides, and for a long time it looked as if the only solution was to sacrifice either one or both of the industries. This concerned me immensely because I felt that if we lost either of them it meant we were going to lose a significant economic base.I have to say again that Warwick Parer has done a really good job in a situation which, after a long period of conflict, almost came to blows in 1996. He has done very well in reconciling both of these industries and in coming up with legislation that will ensure the long-term viability of both of them. It is a very sensible and commonsense approach which acknowledges the legitimate needs and rights of both of the very important players. He has certainly been helped, along the way, by people like Bob Lemison, who has a Great Barrier Reef marine tuna company in Cairns and who, like the majority of the fishermen, is a true environmentalist who strongly supports sustainable utilisation practices. Bob supports this legislation, as does the game fishing industry. Bob Lemison runs eight tuna boats and, like Les Lowe, employs about 50 people directly and about the same number indirectly. He has been fishing for all of his life. For about 10 years now, he has operated out of Cairns, exporting about 90 per cent of his catch and retaining 10 per cent for the local market. He is in agreement with Les Lowe about there being no reason for the commercial harvesting of marlin.We had some problems in the past with long-liners, but Bob has been among the responsible ones. He pointed out that the tuna boats actually try to avoid the marlin, wherever possible. He has also had a rule, in all the time he has been fishing up around Cairns, that he will not take marlin on board. If it is accidentally picked up, he immediately releases it; he will not take it on board. I commend him for his foresight and his very responsible attitude. One of the things that came out of this situation, of course, is the fact that if the game fishermen and the tuna fishermen get together, they can actually benefit each other—because the game fishermen are looking for the marlin and the tuna fishermen are avoiding them. By exchanging information about where the marlin are, both can go about their businesses. It is very good to see that. Marlin actually feed on the tuna, so they see the boats as a great attraction—a captive meal—so the fishermen tend to spear them, which means they have no value whatsoever.The minister has certainly been calling for more research into fish management and for more general research into all aspects of the industry. I share his view. I am pleased to see that our government is also moving in this direction. This legislation also includes an amendment for a stock assessment of billfish. I am happy to assure the fishing industry of North Queensland that this assessment will be fully funded by the government. There has been a genuine concern by fishermen that the government was going to impose additional costs on them which they could not afford. While fishing operators already pay levies that contribute considerably to ongoing research, I have to reaffirm that this tab for the two-year assessment will be picked up totally by the government, and rightfully so.I would like to touch on another area before I finish. I notice that the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas) and the member for O'Connor raised the issue of native title and the impact it has on the fishing industry. It is interesting that three of us are at the coalface of impacts of the current uncertainty. I am encouraged to see that Senator Harradine in the other place is considering allowing us to put through our 10-point plan. I encourage him to do so as quickly as possible because this uncertainty is hurting people in the fishing industry immensely.In some ways, the fishing industry is a little like the mining industry. Its members spend a lot of money on equipment to be able to access a resource which they believe they have a legitimate right to access and which they have a licence or permit to access. Suddenly they find that they cannot access that resource because of claims over particular areas. These boats are lying idle, as does mining equipment. Unfortunately, the banks or the finance companies do not suddenly say, `Since there is a delay, we will stop your repayments.' These guys have to keep paying, but they have no income. As a consequence, one after the other ends up going to the wall.I believe that resources, be they related to mining or fishing, need to be shared by all Australians for the benefit of the nation. I believe that the Native Title Amendment Bill 1998 will address that issue. I encourage Senator Harradine to allow it to go through as quickly as possible.In closing, I would like to say that the very nature of fishing means that fishermen are constantly up against the forces of nature. They also have a crop that is unpredictable. We need to make the protection of our fish resources a No. 1 priority as one crop failure in any form of farming means disaster for the future. The long-term protection of our beautiful creatures, such as the marlin, is also absolutely imperative, and the long-term protection of those men and women who make a living from the sea is an equal priority. I commend this bill to the House. (Time expired)12:33:005405Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I too rise today to speak to the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . It is of particular interest to me and many of my constituents. It is a bill that goes to the very heart of one of the biggest industries in my electorate of Petrie, which is the fishing industry, and, more importantly, the prawn processing industry. The Redcliffe Peninsula relies heavily on Moreton Bay for tourism, industry and recreational pursuits. Fishing is considered one of the largest leisure pastimes in this area. Within the Redcliffe region are very famous restaurants, such as Morgans Seafood Restaurant, conference centres, retail fish markets and major prawn processing establishments.The commercial harvest is valued at $1.7 billion a year according to the economic and social benefits of recreational and traditional fishing. More than $1.3 billion of the seafood industry by-catch is exported. The challenge for the industry is to provide a product that is dependable and meets the needs of clients in an environment that is becoming more and more competitive. There are 800,000 Queensland recreational anglers who are part of 3.5 million anglers Australia-wide.Without a doubt, the seafood industry is a major contributor to the economy and to jobs around the whole of Australia but particularly in my area. It is with some personal interest that I speak on this bill. My family has been involved in the seafood industry over a period of 45 years. We started in a small way in retailing, and we now wholesale and export. I thank the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch) for his very kind comments about the seafood industry and my family's involvement. I notice that he also has a deep involvement in creatures of the sea, being crocodiles. He is legendary for his work in that industry as well.There has been a great deal of media attention recently on fish and chips. I bring to the House's attention the fact that fish and chips is an honourable profession. I agree with the member for Leichhardt that it is a profession that is passed down from generation to generation. With that, there is no doubt that there are people who have worked in the industry for four or five generations and will continue to do so. Many of those people are in my electorate of Petrie. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) really deserves to be congratulated for his handling of this issue, which will give every prawn processor a democratic say on what needs to be done in the industry.This bill was drafted after many months of consultation. For the record, until recently the prawn industry paid two compulsory export promotion levies: the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge. The levies fund the activities of the Australian Prawn Promotion Association, or APPA, and raised about $400,000 in 1996-97. The purpose of those levies was to basically promote prawns within our export markets. The industry was never consulted about these levies. They were imposed on the seafood industry under the Labor government in 1995. Many in the industry complained to me and the minister that there was a lack of consultation before those levies were imposed, and they complained about the ensuing demand that the levies placed on their business.There are 3,000 people who work in the seafood industry in Queensland. On behalf of the local prawn processors in my region, and Queensland, I made representations to the minister in early 1997 regarding concerns about the compulsory nature of these levies. Some of the prawn processors that I met with told me that they were paying in excess of $70,000 a year to the Prawn Promotion Agency, which is a huge impost on any business.I was able to host a forum where local processors had the opportunity to voice their concerns in an open manner to the minister. I was very pleased with the openness of that forum and the minister's ability to listen to the group and to take back their concerns. He is to be congratulated on his consultative nature.They strongly oppose paying these levies. The government's view in the past was that any levies imposed on any industry should occur when there was industry support, or if there had been market failure. Clearly, neither of those things existed in this particular case. Prawns, as the member for Leichhardt said, are not a difficult product to promote. I can guarantee that if I put a plate of prawns in front of the House here today none of you would need any urging or promoting to partake of them. Similarly, our export markets have always been very strong and have remained very high in the current climate.The minister decided to hold a plebiscite, designed to give all prawn processors an opportunity to see whether the levies were supported by the whole industry, and the ballot would then determine the future of the compulsory levy for overseas promotion. There was a `Yes' case prepared and a `No' case prepared. Considerable work and detail was put into those opposing cases, and each side was given a fair opportunity to put forward their respective cases. It was done in a fair, democratic and open manner. A Queensland accounting firm was asked to oversee the project, which took place in the form of a postal vote. The result of the plebiscite was that 85 per cent of the prawn processors opposed the levy. There was a response rate of 67 per cent. Indeed, it was a very strong and formidable result, particularly with that sort of a response rate.The previous government enforced these levies on the prawn processing industry. I am pleased to be part of a government which consulted with the industry to determine the need for such a levy. We have now rectified the situation. This consultation should have occurred when the idea of a levy was first mentioned.I have been criticised by the management of APPA about this decision. I have been accused of all sorts of things, including the fact that I have self-interest in this because of my family's involvement in the seafood industry. For the House's record, I would like to state publicly that my family is not involved in the export of prawns at the moment. My self-interest relates solely to my Queensland processors. And that reminds me of another thing that I have been accused of. I have been accused of acting only for Queensland processors. If I act on behalf of the Queensland prawn processors, that is a good thing. That is what I am in this House for, and I will continue to lobby on their behalf.The bill, in effect, allows for the decision of the industry as a whole to be given legislative effect. It repeals the Prawn Export Charge Act, the Prawn Boat Levy Act and the Prawn Export Promotion Act. However, it must be stressed that this bill does not abolish the Australian Prawn Promotion Agency. It still operates with voluntary support.As I have mentioned, prawns do not need promoting. It has been a very welcome relief for many of the prawn processors that the action taken has been taken. The fact is that every kilogram of sea caught prawns is sold. So why do we need to have an agency that promotes prawns? In fact, major exporters themselves have been marketing and promoting prawns as part of their normal routine. Other industries, such as beef and wool, support independent organisations who then provide promotion, particularly where there is a strong competitive market in the South-East Asian region. However, the export demand for sea caught prawns continues to be strong, particularly in markets like Japan, Singapore and other Asian nations.One particular processing company which contacted me said that their annual export of sea caught prawns, of which the majority is re-processed through their factory, is in excess of 1,000 tonnes. They said, `We don't have a marketing problem. Whatever is caught in a calendar year is sold within that year, and it is very rare to see any of it carried over into the new year.'Prawns are exported to many countries from Australia. We have banana and tiger prawns going to Japan and China. King prawns are exported to markets such as Europe, South Africa and Taiwan. Endeavour prawns go to New Zealand and Hong Kong. Harvested or aquaculture prawns are very popular in Thailand and India.According to industry sources, and to people like Global Seafood's General Manager Jacki Lien, our greatest threats in the industry are export levies, exchange rates and the growth of aquaculture prawns, which is certainly a threat. Also, we face threats from prawns imported from Asia, particularly with the practices that occurred under the previous Labor government when they were allowed to import prawns into this country in 1.7- and 1.8-kilogram lots, whereas our own exporters have to export in two-kilogram lots. I know we will look at these particular practices as well in the future.Nobody disputes that it is a tough market at the moment, particularly in Asia and Japan, but the market is holding up. It is also a very speculative market, particularly with the current exchange rates. But we are better off at the moment because of our dollar. Were our dollar at the rate it was a year ago, the industry's situation would probably be a lot worse, so the falling dollar has helped prawn exporters.Catches in the industry have been erratic. In particular, banana prawns from the Gulf have been very erratic. The season, which started on 1 April this year, has been a very disappointing one. Southern Ocean prawns have been abundant, and they have been exported to Europe. The catch of those particular prawns in South Australia occurs every year from March to June, and it starts again in November.The member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) last night was very supportive of this bill and mentioned that neither he nor the Labor opposition would oppose any aspects of the bill or implement any amendments. For that, he needs to be congratulated. He also acknowledged that the levy was imposed by the former Labor government to assist the industry, to ensure that it did not get into serious export development problems and also to promote the marketing and export development process.He went on to say that the industry had benefited from the compulsory levy. I beg to differ on that particular point. The export industry has always been highly competitive. It has been export driven, it has been market focused and many of the processors engaged in very aggressive promotion campaigns of their own. So in fact they were double-dipping. Not only did they provide their own promotions and export driven drives but they also had to contribute to APPA.The member for Burke also agreed with the government that, when it came to looking at the huge number of submissions we received, we had no choice other than to have a plebiscite and take the appropriate action, which we did. The member for Burke also mentioned that it is not very good marketing sense to reduce your marketing efforts when there is a downturn in demand. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that point. As a former marketer, I believe that you really need to increase your marketing efforts. A lot of these prawn processors continue to market as aggressively now as they did in the past, and will continue to do so.I know that APPA met with many of the prawn processors earlier this year, and there is still scope for many of them to voluntarily contribute to APPA's operations, and they can continue to do so. But it is voluntary, and that is what it should have been from the start. There is no doubt that it is a competitive market and, as the member for Burke stated last night, it will be a very tight market. I agree with him on that. I think that any export market, not just prawns, is going to be tough and tight at the moment. I know that we need to be more competitive. We need to be more market driven and more focused, particularly in the global economy.I would like to now turn to some of the other issues mentioned last night by the member for Burke, including funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and, particularly, their cut of $3.6 million. I acknowledge that this government had to cut that funding, but it is a one-off situation. We came to government faced with a budget deficit, and we were also faced with a terrible situation with the South-East Trawl Fishery, which was managed by the previous government. The government had no choice but to cut down on funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation because a huge situation had arisen as a result of the South-East Fishery. The minister had to offer a bailout to a lot of the people involved in the industry. Some $2.3 million had to be given to 18 operators who suffered financial losses as a result of Labor's mismanagement of the South-East Fishery.Since 1992 the fishery had been managed by a system of output controls called `individual transferable quotas'. The previous Labor government completely botched the quota system and did nothing to fix the mistakes. So we came to power during a period of great wrangling, litigation and uncertainty. To his credit, the minister appointed a small working group of people to look at the adjustment options for the fisheries. That working group recommended that the operators be given $129,800 each, and the worst affected operators were offered $352,000.These schemes cost money. Out of that money, some had to be cut from other areas. The total buy-out of the South-East Fishery was $4.4 million. There is some money available—$2.4 million, I believe—that can be offered to other adjustment programs. But the government had absolutely no choice in this. We had to fix up the previous government's mistakes. It was an absolutely atrocious situation—all because it was poorly handled from the start and the quotas were botched up. The operators felt absolutely deceived and discouraged by what happened, and it was unseemly.Since 1992 there have been eight internal or public reviews into various aspects of the South-East Fishery. That fishery is the major supplier of fish to the Melbourne and Sydney markets. There was absolutely nothing the minister could do. At that time, the minister who handled the introduction of the quota system was Simon Crean. As far back as 1991, the industry urged him to delay introducing the system. They said, `Don't hurry, don't do it in haste, there is a lot of uncertainty involved; take your time.' But he proceeded anyway, and this was the disastrous mess we found ourselves with.When Mr Crean introduced the quota system, as early as six weeks after the plan took effect it started to collapse. He then had to write to the AFMA chairman and ask him to review the situation. We speak about cuts to the FRDC, but what was occurring with the South-East Fishery meant that the money had to come from somewhere. I would like to reiterate that the minister must be congratulated for the steps he has taken in putting together a working group of independent people who determined that the processes and quotas be adjusted. He is to be commended for that.I would like to touch on one other aspect of the bill today, and that is the decision in relation to the blue marlin and black marlin. It is in line with a House of Representatives report, also given to the government, that there be a ban on the take and possession of billfish, except broadbill fish. The report also recommended that there be a total ban on the take and possession of blue marlin and black marlin. It asked for a ban to be applied from the signing of the next bilateral agreement with Japan on 1 January 1996. It also covered things like the recreational sector and the development, arrangement and possession of marlin by recreational fishermen. We do have an obligation to ensure that our fish stocks are sustainable. We as a government have an obligation to ensure that the industry flourishes and that all of those who partake in the industry, whether they are recreational or commercial fishermen, have a collective responsibility.Blue and black marlin are of little value to commercial fishermen and therefore are not a targeted species for the commercial sector. It is important that we manage the resources of our oceans. I would like to compliment the minister on the action he has taken with this particular legislation, particularly for the prawn processing levy he has introduced and the steps he has taken to ensure that the industry is sustainable and that the catching of marlin is reviewed very carefully. I commend the bill to the House.The minister has provided the industry with an opportunity. He has listened to the industry; he has been consultative and provided an opportunity for the industry to partake in the democratic process. I am glad that the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 took into account the prawn processing levy issues as well as the marlin issues. (Time expired)12:53:005409Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank all members for their contributions during the debate on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . This bill implements one of the commitments the government made before the last election. In the 1996 election campaign, the coalition promised that it 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, the government has decided to impose the ban by law. This bill is an honourable and workable compromise between the legitimate interests of commercial operators and the interests of recreational and charter fishers.I would like to deal briefly with a couple of the points raised by the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) during his speech on the second reading debate. He raised the issue of the $3.6 million reduction in the 1997-98 budget for the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. The House would be aware that we have gone over this issue again and again. I will repeat what other ministers have said. The previous Labor government mismanaged the south-east fishery, and some operators suffered huge financial losses as a result of the Labor government's incompetence on this issue.We had to stabilise the fishery by setting up an adjustment program, and in the public interest we decided that it was more urgent and important to stabilise the south-east fishery than to pay the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation its full unmatched contribution in 1997-98. We also considered the urgent importance of reducing Labor's budget deficit at the time. We did not make the decision to reduce the FRDC's appropriation lightly or hastily, and we made it after considering a number of even less palatable alternatives. The decision was the only sensible one that could have been made in the circumstances.The member for Burke also raised the issue of illegal foreign fishing around the Heard Island and McDonald Islands territory in the subantarctic. It should be noted that the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) and the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, have done a very good job of protect ing Australia's interests in this region by sending in the navy to arrest three foreign vessels allegedly fishing illegally in the area. Illegal fishing operators in the subantarctic should watch out. They will never know if the trail of smoke coming over the horizon is one of their illegal fishing mates or a Royal Australian Navy frigate coming to arrest them. I acknowledge the contributions of all members to the debate on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5410Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott) read a third time.Bills5410r5075410Debate resumed from 8 April, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.12:57:005410Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 represents a further attack by the Howard government on the human rights of ordinary Australians. It forms just one part of a series of actions being undertaken by the Howard government that are depriving many hundreds of thousands of Australians of the right of access to justice and the right to hold their government accountable.This government is attacking the rights held by Australians by making cuts to a wide variety of justice related services. These include cuts to legal aid, the federal courts and tribunals, and the family services program. The government has also increased fees for federal courts and tribunals and is considering limiting the rights of Australians to hold their government accountable through the Commonwealth's administrative law system.In total, from its election to the turn of the century, the government will have cut more than $400 million from services that help Australians access justice. Foremost among the cuts to access justice measures are the government's cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government has reduced funding for the commission from the $21.6 million provided in the 1995-96 financial year, to the $20.5 million provided in the 1996-97 financial year, to the $18.2 million provided this year, to $12.3 million provided in 1998-99, and to an average of only $10.6 million over each of the outyears.Once completed, the cuts implemented by this government will mean that in real terms the budget of the commission will have been cut by an average of a staggering $13 million per year, or 55 per cent. In total, over the six years budgeted by the Howard government, this government will spend a staggering $57 million less in real terms than if 1995-96 funding levels had been maintained.Despite the fact that the cuts announced by the government were not meant to begin to take full effect until next financial year, the commission was forced, for budgetary reasons, to implement the cuts with effect from 1 January this year. This is because the government failed to provide the commission with ancillary funding to meet the inevitable costs that would flow from redundancy packages. And redundancies there have been. As a result of the cuts, the commission has been forced to sack approximately 60 of its 180 staff, and half a million dollars a year of its now very scarce budget is being wasted on vacant unused office space in its Sydney office in Castlereagh Street, Sydney.The effect of these cuts has been devastating. The commission has effectively been forced to abandon the great bulk of its ongoing inquiry work and, instead, has been forced to meet its essential, statutory obligations to conciliate complaints. The actual effect of these cuts is completely at odds with the government's claims. The then Acting Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP, stated in a media release dated 9 June 1997:Reports in the media today contain incorrect claims that changes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) will have a negative impact on disabled people. However, the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Sidoti, who is now the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner as well, confirmed, in evidence to a Senate estimates committee, that the services provided by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner would be amongst those to be affected by the cuts. Indeed, half the staff formerly working in the disability discrimination area have now been sacked.The government's deceit in not telling some of the most disadvantaged in our community of the real effect of these cuts is simply deplorable and should be condemned by all in our community. But deceit about the commission's budget began at the time of the last election. Generally, the government promised that Labor's access to justice measures, including the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, would have their budgets either matched or extended. A specific exception was noted for the commission in one particular regard. In its election promises, the government originally projected a cut of $1.5 million per year in the 1996-97 budget to transfer the hearing function from the commission to the Federal Court of Australia. This cut has been delayed pending the passage of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1996. However, even this cut was unjustified. The Senate estimates committee has been told that the true cost to the commission for the provision of the hearing function is only $600,000 per year. Despite this evidence, the government has persisted with the implementation of this cut purely on the basis that the coalition got the figure wrong in its law and justice policy released by Senator Vanstone during the 1996 federal election.I turn now to the Fightback agenda. In reality, the government has implemented its discredited Fightback agenda on human rights. As part of that package, in November 1991 the coalition promised to cut the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. However, those cuts were abandoned in the wake of the 1993 election defeat because of strong community opposition. However, they have re-emerged in this government's deceitful agenda to attack institutions that play an important role in ensuring a fair and decent Australia.The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1996 sits alongside that bill—a deceitful bill which, whilst implementing reforms necessary as a result of the High Court's Brandy decision, also implements a variety of measures that will deprive most Australians of any real ability to personally enforce their human rights. The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) claimed, in a media release dated 3 March this year, that the Labor Party was delaying passage of the No. 1 bill. The truth is that this government has failed to list that bill on the Notice Paper in the Senate at any time when it had any real prospects of actually being debated. For example, the government listed the bill for debate after the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997in December last year. The No. 1 bill was not reached. The No. 1 bill was listed again briefly in March, but once again at the end of a long legislative program which was again unlikely to be reached. Since then, and despite ample opportunities for the government to list the bill for debate in the Senate, it has not appeared on the Senate Notice Paper. So, despite having had almost 12 months since it was introduced in the Senate, and a similar time since the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee reported on that bill, the Attorney has simply been unable to convince his colleagues of the importance that this legislation be dealt with by the parliament. It is the Attorney and the government that are delaying the passage of that legislation. The Labor Party—as it is entitled to do—is merely seeking to amend the objectionable parts of that legislation.The government's attacks on human rights do not end there. The decision announced by the government to cut $120 million over three years from legal aid funding, and thereby to dismantle Australia's national unified legal aid system, is also having a profound effect on the ability of Australians to enforce their human rights. This is particularly the case as, in accordance with the provisions of the No. 1 bill, discrimination law disputes will now be determined in the Federal Court of Australia.I draw the House's attention to the more detailed discussion of the effect of the cuts to legal aid funding as contained in the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee's first and second reports on Australia's legal aid system. Accordingly, I do not propose to discuss the details of the cuts in the context of the present bill. However, there are two points that I wish to make. First, the legal aid cuts over the six years budgeted by this government now represent a $231 million cut in legal aid funding in real terms. Each year the Howard government is spending $46.5 million less in real terms on legal aid funding than if 1995-96 funding levels and expenditure commitments had been maintained.Secondly, I note that the Commonwealth-state legal aid agreements, which came into effect on 1 July 1997, contain the following guideline at 5.1 with respect to the funding of equal opportunity and discrimination cases: The Commission may grant assistance for equal opportunity/discrimination cases where there are strong prospects of substantial benefit being gained not only by the applicant but also by the public or any section of the public.Such a guideline is totally unacceptable because it unfairly excludes people suffering from discrimination from access to legal assistance. The guideline achieves this effect by providing a number of additional qualifiers to the standard merits and financial hardship tests that an applicant is required to demonstrate. In particular, applicants must show that: (a) they have strong prospects of success; (b) those prospects are directed towards the attainment of a substantial benefit; and (c) the benefit will be acquired not only by the individual bringing the complaint but also by the claim serving a broader public interest, or otherwise being in the interests of a section of the public. These additional requirements have been applied arbitrarily, as other civil litigants are not required to satisfy similar criteria in order to access legal aid. These additional requirements will effectively exclude large numbers of people adversely affected by discrimination from access to legal aid and therefore will deny most of them the ability to protect their fundamental human rights.Finally, these additional requirements are simply unacceptable as a matter of principle. The Labor Party believes that the creation of equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination are matters which derive substantial benefits not only to individual complainants but also to both the class of persons to which that complainant belongs and to the community as a whole. Accordingly, the Labor Party believes that tests (b) and (c) mentioned above are either redundant or, to the extent that they impose some higher standard on applicants, are in breach of both the moral and international legal obligations owed the Australian government and thus should be opposed.The problem with all this is that—and it is consistent; I will come to the legislation next—we really have a government that has an attitude problem. The members of this government are into bean counting. We have an Attorney-General who, unfortunately, carries no clout in this government; who time and time again is rolled by his cabinet. Frankly, the problem is at the top with this Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—a mean spirited, vindictive Prime Minister who is using Fightback as his agenda, because he had no agenda when he came to government. It was a government elected on deceit; it was a government whose members told us, before they were elected, that we would get more of the same, that we would all be comfortable and relaxed and that it would be a government for all of us.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 75. I know that intemperate language is not uncommon in this place. The point of order is that I think those words are offensive, and I do not think they should be used. I certainly think that it is the kind of thing which gives rise to the general contempt in which this place is, too sadly, held by too many people.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.H. Adams)—I ask the honourable member for Banks to keep to the matter before the House.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—The relevancy is that when you change governments you invariably change the nation, and it is the Prime Minister who, most of all, drives that change. This bill is consistent with the values of this Prime Minister. This government goes backwards, not forwards. The changes that this bill brings to the human rights legislation in this country are a backward step. What I was saying earlier is relevant, because what you need to do is look at the historical record and learn from the mistakes of the past and go forwards, not backwards. This legislation goes backwards. I think that, up until recently, Australia had a proud record; we made a number of mistakes but we were getting there. We were leading the charge in international forums in relation to human rights. Human rights is now off the agenda, as far as foreign affairs is concerned; it is all about trade.As we deny the human rights of our own indigenous Australians—our first Australians—and those who are less able and fortunate in the community, and as we deny access to justice of most Australians—as these changes that are being brought to the parliament will do—we will stand condemned, because we are in breach of international obligations in a whole range of areas. Frankly, it all stems from the top, so the Prime Minister does bear the responsibility. In the end, the buck stops with him. You have to go to the detail, and when you go to the detail and they say to us that there is no financial impact—as they do in the explanatory memorandum—that is garbage, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott), who is at the table, knows that. In the end, you will be judged by your record, and it is a sorry record. Is it any wonder that people are moving to simplistic solutions when there has been a betrayal of trust? This legislation is a betrayal of trust. It is a betrayal of the policies that were abandoned. The electorate was told, `No, we're not going down that path. We've abandoned the Fightback proposal.' But this bill is a Fightback agenda. Dr Hewson might not have attained the prime ministership, but this Prime Minister is implementing his policies.The bill implements the government's foreshadowed reforms to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In particular, the bill (a) renames the commission as the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission; (b) restructures the commission to replace the specialist commissioners with a president and three deputy presidents; (c) allegedly refocuses the objectives of the commission to make education, dissemination of information on human rights and assistance to business and the general community the focus of the commission's functions; (d) requires the commission to seek the leave of the Attorney-General before engaging in litigation—and I will come back to that—(e) removes the advisory committees to the commission; (f) prohibits the president from delegating the complaint handling function to the more specialised deputy commissioners; (g) removes the power of the commission to recommend damages; (h) removes the barrier to appointing a person as a member of the commission who is over 65 years of age; (i) abolishes the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner; (j) abolishes the position of Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Community Relations Council; and (k) establishes the new separate office of the Privacy Commissioner.Despite the government's claim that the new structure will make the commission more efficient, the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that it has no financial impact. Indeed, as the most recent round of estimates hearings indicates, the government still does not have any idea of how much it will cost to establish the new separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner.With regard to the structure of the commission, the vast majority of these amendments implement an entirely new structure for the commission. In doing so, they remove the positions of the specialist commissioners whose expertise is vital in the determination and investigation of human rights matters. They also reduce the flexibility of the commission to engage in the complaint handling function. It follows that the Labor Party opposes these amendments.In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General claimed that this bill represents a fundamental cultural change for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. He claimed that the bill would make education the commission's new priority. He also claimed that the bill would enhance the commission's role in assisting business. But the reality of the Howard government's human rights policy is vastly different from that.It is well known that the government has an historical hostility to the ability of individual Australians to enforce human rights. Instead, it seeks to rely on the amorphous sense that education will make sure that people treat each other with the respect they deserve. Whilst education plays an important role in developing greater compliance with our human rights obligations, such mechanisms do not protect individuals from or give them redress concerning breaches of their human rights.What the government fails to understand is that an effective and well resourced complaint handling and inquiry process is central to the development of a healthy human rights culture. It does so through highlighting individual examples or the plights of groups of people within our society who are living with discrimination. The personalising of these problems is one of the most effective means to educate the people about human rights. All of us will have seen in recent years numerous examples of decisions or reports by the commission that incited public interest and debate.Secondly, the government's argument assumes that these reforms are about enhancing the ability of the commission to educate the public. The reality is that this government's budget cuts to the commission have actually reduced the ability of the commission to engage in public education and awareness campaigns. In 1995-96 the commission spent almost $595,000 in real terms, not including salary and administrative expenses, on community and public education campaigns. The 1996-97 budget cuts reduced that amount to $539,000. This year it was reduced to $425,000. In total, the commission's education budget has been cut by 28.5 per cent.In related campaigns, the government's promised anti-racism education campaign is yet to commence—over two years after it was promised and over 18 months since the rise of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). The campaign, which was originally meant to be a two-year, $10 million campaign, was cut in the 1996-97 budget to a one-year, $5 million campaign; in 1997-98 it was cut to a one-year, $4.5 million campaign—and it was not even funded in this year's budget.Instead of educating Australians, the attitude survey undertaken by the government was little more than push polling which peddled some of the most objectionably racist views I have heard in a while. The reality is that this government has no commitment to educating Australians about the need to respect each other's human rights. This clause is nothing more than a hypocritical sham being perpetrated by this government to justify its attempts to emasculate an agency it has always hated.This government would rather play wedge politics through its highly divisive attacks on native title, Aboriginal welfare and its history of playing footsy with the One Nation Party. I do not put the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs in that category, but I certainly do put the Prime Minister in that category. For this government to pretend that it cares one iota about the human rights of ordinary Australians is an insult to our intelligence.In relation to the Attorney-General's supervision of the ability of the commission to engage in litigation, consistent with this government's hatred and mistrust of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the government has taken the unprecedented step of seeking to remove its independent discretion to engage in litigation. No such similar control is placed by this government on any other similar independent agency, whether it be the ACCC, the ASC, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the DPP. This provision is fundamentally objectionable and exposes the government's agenda for what it truly is. It follows that the Labor Party could never condone such an amendment. You talk about an independent commission, yet you have the Attorney-General riding shotgun over them.The bill also undermines the power of the commission to award damages against government departments. This provision pre-empts debate on a Labor Party amendment to the No. 1 bill, which will allow the commission to continue to be able to make binding determinations affecting Commonwealth departments and agencies. The Labor Party opposes that amendment for this reason. I do not propose to discuss this amendment further, other than to indicate that, for the obvious reason, the Labor Party opposes it.Finally, the bill removes a inappropriate age discrimination provisions in relation to appointments. Consistent with Labor Party policy, we will support this provision. However, amending the bill so as to merely pass this clause seems rather pointless. Accordingly, the Labor Party will not support this clause in this context. Rather, we will move an identical amendment in the context of debate in the Senate on the No. 1 bill.It follows that the Labor Party opposes this bill, and we will be voting against it in the second and third readings. The bill is nothing more than a deception on the people of Australia. Contrary to the Attorney-General's second reading speech, this bill is not about a more efficient commission focused on the delivery of community education about discrimination. Rather, it is a further attack on what was once an internationally admired institution, an institution used as a model by others in establishing their own human rights bodies.This bill is the ultimate representation of the antipathy this government feels to the rights of ordinary Australians. This bill is undemocratic, it is deceitful and it is, despite the recent overuse of the words, truly un-Australian. It is yet another sign that this government sold out to the Hansonite agenda. It is disgraceful and should be opposed by all decent thinking Australians, and the Labor Party will be opposing it.What concerns me is this: we have a Prime Minister who prided himself on free speech when he went to Brisbane a short while ago, shortly after the member for Oxley made her first speech. He went out and said, `We should have free speech.' The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is fundamental to that free speech. It is fundamental to scrutinising the excesses of departments and a whole range of organisations and individuals. And what do we do? We have a Prime Minister in bed with those who peddle the speech of hate and division and saying, `Let's have that.' Any organisation to the contrary—the churches—that rise up on matters of principle are condemned out of hand.What you have here is a campaign to undermine the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—to gut it for the sake of more efficiency. It is not efficiency; it is cutting the services. A cut is a cut is a cut is a cut. It is a different philosophy. I know that there are those in the government who do not support this but are powerless to do anything about it.This bill will not get past first base between now and the next election. This bill will drop off the agenda. It will not reach the agenda in the Senate, and we will oppose it. If we come to government, it will never see the light of day. If we are not elected, we will continue to oppose it in the next parliament because it is a backward step for this nation. It is a backward step by a backward government led by a backward Prime Minister.We should be going forward. We should be in a period of celebration. In the year 2000 we will be on show to the world. Instead, what has happened is that we have become inward looking. We have backroom deals taking place, where the rights of our first Australians, who were finally recognised belatedly by the High Court, are being ripped away or attempted to be ripped away by this government. Why?Is it any wonder that there is a rise of a third force in this country, if you look at the opinion polls. Why? Because there is a lack of leadership at the moment from the top, and this legislation is indicative of it. This legislation is unworthy of support—and I know there are honourable members on the other side that will get up dutifully and support the government's legislation. That is their job. Often I had to do it, but what I did was to remain silent. I got rolled a number of times in the last parliament from the back bench. I always fought the good fight, but I did not get up and say that black was white at any stage. This legislation does not survive the faintest scrutiny.We have a reputation for having different views, and I know that some of the views expressed have some merit. I am not talking about an argument of this or that or whatever—you can have policy differences—but there is a fundamental shift in this legislation. This legislation is not about efficiency but about tearing the heart out of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—neutering them, gutting them, not giving them resources, silencing them and putting them under the umbrella of the Attorney-General so that they do not pursue.I favour the human rights bodies, the auditors-general, for keeping the executive honest, but too often governments become precious. Do not think that we in the last government did not get whacked around the head a number of times by the human rights commission and other bodies, because we did, but we never did this sort of trick. We never came back at them in this vindictive way, in this underhanded way. Frankly, that is why there is despair at the moment: the lack of leadership at the top. The garbage that this legislation presents to this parliament is not the way forward. (Time expired)13:27:005416Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I am quite comfortable about speaking in support of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you represent the electorate of Lyons. You represent many people who are unemployed; you represent a lot of blue-collar workers from the timber industry, the mining industry and primary industry; you represent people who are trying to survive on the land; and you represent people who struggle to find their next mortgage payment, to pay the next payment on their car and who worry about their kids getting a decent education and what kind of future they are going to have.Mr Deputy Speaker, you were also part of a government that, whilst it did many good things, failed Australia in two ways. It failed us by allowing us to finance essential social infrastructure on debt and asset sales rather than on income, but your government also failed us because it allowed many of us, people in my generation especially—people who benefited from an education, people who felt secure in their jobs—to become a selfish generation. We became far more concerned about our rights than our responsibilities and our concern for others.A lot of things done by the previous government were financed by the hard work of low income Australians, many of whom you represent. The previous government actually funded some bureaucracies that were very well intended and very well based but, frankly, lost their way. It seemed that the government was more concerned about the top-heavy nature of things like the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission than about unemployed timber workers in your electorate.The bill seeks to do a number of things. It seeks to rename the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission, to remind us, amongst other things, that we cannot have rights without also having responsibilities, that sometimes we need to think about others as well as ourselves.It also seeks to restructure the new commission, to abolish the five specific commissioners responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice, human rights, disability, race and sex discrimination, and replace them with three deputy presidents with responsibility for human rights and disability discrimination, racial discrimination and social justice, and sex discrimination and equal opportunity. HREOC's broad objectives are to promote respect for and observance of human rights. It is also responsible for the administration of the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination regime: the Race Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Privacy Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act. Central to its current functions are handling and conciliation of complaints that are made to it, re search into systemic forms of discrimination, education, advocacy and advising government on legislation that affects human rights and discrimination issues.It has also become the vehicle through which law seeks to give effect to Australia's egalitarian principles and aspirations. In that sense, it is very important that many low-middle and low income Australians, who work so hard to finance this, do not lose sight of the fact that it actually is a vehicle for giving effect to the things that we value as being uniquely Australian principles.Between 1997 and 1999, HREOC's budget was reduced from $19.3 million to $12.3 million. But it is important that honourable members on the other side remember that HREOC's growth over the past decade has been disproportionate to that in other areas of government. In fact, over the past nine years, funding increased from $4 million to in excess of $20 million, a 500 per cent increase. It is not that that is necessarily something to be criticised, but it was at a time when other things that many Australians considered to be important were either underfunded or not funded at all. Budgetary changes are also a reflection of restructuring of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's functions set out in the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 .The bill is the result of a detailed examination by the government of the structure and operations of the commission. The government's examination found that the current structure of the commission is in many ways inefficient and top-heavy. It does not always operate in the best interests of the entire Australian community. In addition, there exists a perception that the commission has become too focused on protecting those sections of the community for whom a specific commissioner exists, often to the detriment perhaps of other disadvantaged or vulnerable sections of society. The new structure, in which three deputy presidents with more general responsibilities will replace five of the existing portfolio specific commissioners, will address these concerns while fully maintaining the protection afforded to all Australians under federal anti-discrimination laws.The government does recognise, however, that specialist commissioner positions have provided a desirable focus for policy development, research and expertise in the individual portfolio areas. The new structure of three deputy presidents with support from specialist units within the staff of the commission will allow the commission to continue its work in these areas without the current overlap and duplication in work and administration. The new structure is also likely to allow for the development of expertise in new areas without needing to appoint portfolio specific commissioners for each of those areas.The government is actually quite confident that the commission's new structure will enable it to work in a more streamlined, cooperative and cohesive manner and to make better and more efficient use of its resources. The new structure will also allow for the development of a more outward looking organisation, protecting everyone's rights and promoting awareness of our responsibilities to each other, while still maintaining areas of specialist expertise. The new structure will also help the commission to contribute to the further enhancement of Australia's already enviable reputation as a world leader in the protection and the promotion of human rights.I would like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of publications of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The first is entitled The International Role of Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, published in January 1997. It says:Australia has a human rights record in which we can justly take pride. This does not say that it is perfect, not by any means. The history of the two centuries of European settlement in Australia reveals the most flagrant violations of the human rights of Australia's original peoples and their descendants. There are other examples of where we have failed: the White Australia policy that persisted for almost 70 years after Federation; the continuing under-representation of women in positions of responsibility and influence in the community; the denial of the rights of lesbians and gay men; discrimination on the basis of disability; times when our international relations have favoured trade over human rights and so on. Nonetheless, we can take pride in what Australia has achieved: a predominantly tolerant pluralistic society with a high level of respect for people and general recog nition that each individual is entitled to certain inalienable rights and freedoms.It goes on to say:Human rights are also a central part of our vision for the international political and legal system. For that reason from the beginning of international human rights law, Australia has been a strong supporter of the development of the legal framework and legal mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights.It concludes by saying:These are policies supported by all Australian political parties in the Federal Parliament.Australia today is a different country from what it was before 13 June this year. It is also a different country from perhaps what it was three years ago—some would say, I would argue, better; others would say perhaps not. But what is important is that I do not know whether we could say today that all the political parties in this parliament would support the proposition that these policies on human rights ought to be supported. There is one party here that, if it does, has not yet declared it—and that is One Nation—and may in fact not be supportive of these.One of the other critical issues that Australians have become concerned about which evolved predominantly under the previous federal government is that of multiculturalism. This is a term that has been abused, misrepresented, misunderstood and has become the subject of often heated and hostile debate. If any of my constituents in Bradfield are listening to this and feel that they have a hostile attitude to multiculturalism, I think they ought to hear what multiculturalism actually is as defined in Face the Facts, which was produced by the Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner in 1997:Multiculturalism is a policy based on rights and responsibilities, which has been endorsed by Australian governments for managing a unified nation which is culturally diverse. The policy of multiculturalism replaced the previous official policy of assimilation.There are important overriding principles of multiculturalism which can be summarised in the following way, and those who might be attracted to the views of the leader of One Nation, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), particularly ought to listen to this:The first is loyalty to Australia, first and foremost in multiculturalism. All Australians should have an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia's interests and future first and foremost. The second tenet of multiculturalism is this: acceptance of the Australian system. All Australians are required to accept the basic structures and principles of Australian society: the constitution, Australian laws, tolerance, equality, democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language and equity of the sexes.I suspect there were quite a few people that went out to vote for One Nation in the recent Queensland election who would not disagree with that statement, nor indeed the one about loyalty to Australia. The quote continues:The third is mutual respect. All Australians have the right to express their culture and beliefs, and this involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and their values. Multiculturalism is about the inclusion and recognition within the principles enshrined above. It recognises the right of all Australians to enjoy their cultural heritage, including language and religion.How many Australians, if they were to migrate to another country, would want to arrive in that country as immigrants and completely repudiate and forget their Australian culture and background? I for one would not wish to be that way. The quote continues:The right to equal treatment and opportunities for everyone, regardless of their backgrounds. Multiculturalism also aims to ensure maximum use of the skills and talents of all Australians to assist economic efficiency.In this House, in making comments about the member for Oxley and the support that she has attracted, amongst other things I have said that my concern has been that the member for Oxley appeals to a dark side that is in all human beings, from Mother Teresa down. All of us have a part of us that resents people or things we perhaps do not understand or we do not want.And there is another side of it that is called one's conscience, I suppose, which in your best self you know what is the right thing to do. In latter years, doing the right thing, as it used to be called—I think that is what my mother used to call it—has become known as political correctness, and this has become the subject of some derision. I think one of the criticisms levelled particularly by working Australians towards the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is that very good intentions in the form of legislation have been seen at times to have gone too far.I saw Reverend Fred Nile on television last week debating Mr David Oldfield, who is the chief adviser to the member for Oxley. Mr Oldfield was denying that One Nation had a racist agenda or, indeed, racist overtones. Reverend Nile said, `Well, you touched the buttons. You are touching the buttons that unleash this kind of behaviour and this kind of thought,' and he is right. I have received some correspondence recently because I, several weeks ago publicly in my local paper, said that unless the Adolf Hitler party was running in Bradfield One Nation would be last on my how-to-vote card if the Liberal Party wished me to be its candidate in Bradfield, and I pointed out why.I received some correspondence which I would like to read to the House. I will not name the correspondents. They did sign their names. I have checked that they are in fact constituents. The first reads:Mr Nelson,I read your "anti-white racist" slurs levelled against the only ardent patriotic politician we have in Australia today, (namely PAULINE HANSON) and 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 Labour government of the MONGRELS KEATING, HAWKE, BONK-US, EVANS, WHITLAM, GRASSBY, and now the ultimate "TURNCOAT" and "TRAITOR" "LITTLE JOHNNY JACKBOOT 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 etc. 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.The only reassuring part of this letter is that the correspondent says that he will never vote for me. The second letter—and I have had a number like this—came from a lady in Gordon, in my electorate. I will not read the whole letter:Dear Mr Nelson,I take exception to your editorial in last week's North Shore Times on Pauline Hanson.Regrettably, you are now speaking the same politically correct bullshit which Mr Howard & Mr Beazley speak. People voted for One Nation not as a protest vote but simply because she is the only politician to have the guts to speak out.. . . . . . . . .Times are changing &, regrettably, your views & those of your Labor colleagues will be left behind as more & more people see through the politically correctness. Pauline may be ignorant, naive & uneducated & her candidates may have dubious pasts but her message is clear & she would get huge support in a secret ballot in Bradfield.Amongst other things, when I write to this constituent I will inform her that we already have secret ballots.The point that ought to be made is that we all enjoy the right to freedom of speech, and it is something that is defended by all of us. But the right to freedom of speech and its responsible exercise has not ever extended to the right, wittingly or otherwise, to make any section of society feel demeaned, denigrated or alienated.Equally, Dick Smith recently made a point in relation to mean-spiritedness, the same point which the previous speaker, the member for Banks (Mr Melham), made in reference to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). All I can say is that those who describe the Prime Minister as mean-spirited do not know the man—as distinct from our leader. Dick Smith was making the point that, for One Nation and those who subscribe to that view, it is all one way. It is all self-interest. It is bemoaning what other people have got and are getting rather than asking what you can do for another human being or what you can do for your country. That was confirmed in the debate between Mr Oldfield and Reverend Fred Nile on the Today show when Mr Oldfield, in speaking of Australia's contribution to the United Nations, said, `It is all a one-way street. We give and we don't seem to get anything out of it.'I do not give money to the Salvation Army because of what I am going to get out of it. I do not want to live in a country where we turn our backs on the United Nations, where we do not send money in the form of foreign aid. I do not want us to be a nation that does not contribute to humanitarian peacekeeping work in other parts of the world. I certainly hope we do not become a nation where we are in need of receipt of it. I have found in life that, if you want to measure the strength of human beings and of nations, it can be measured in terms of the care, concern and compassion that is shown for those who are in need and whose needs are greater than your own.Many of those Australians, and some of them my constituents, who feel attracted to the views espoused by the member for Oxley and One Nation fail to appreciate that what they are suggesting is just that and that that is where many of their policies are leading. My observation of human beings is that most, if not all, of life's misery and pain comes from people making themselves the centre of their own lives. Whether we are preoccupied with our own rights or whether we are a kind of political party—I refer to One Nation—or a kind of nation that says, `We do not want to help those whose needs are greater than our own,' we are causing misery and pain.We also need to remember that earlier this century we went to war to fight tyranny—and tyranny that had evolved on the shoulders of exploiting the disenfranchised, the poorly educated and those who felt that others were getting more than them. If we allow ourselves to follow public opinion, we will create those very circumstances in our own country. (Time expired)13:47:005420Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 and of course, as the shadow minister, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham), indicated, we will be opposing the changes that comprise the bill. In the contribution of the honourable member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson), and particularly when he was reading the letters from his constituents, I was reminded of a time about 12 months ago when one of my local papers wanted to run a story about One Nation and Pauline Hanson. One of the points that I made in my contribution was that I did not believe any one political party had a monopoly on patriotism or nationalism nor any one politician. A common feature about this place, and there are some, is the strong feelings that all politicians have towards Australia.It is interesting that we should be dealing with the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 because it is symptomatic of a wider problem, and that is that in the English speaking world we always pride ourselves on the rule of law. A couple of things that supplement the rule of law are the activities of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the role of the Ombudsman. I have said a number of times that it deeply disturbs me that, whilst our citizens do have legal rights before the Federal Court and the High Court, they in fact are totally incapable of exercising those rights. I have even said that, in a sense, you are almost better off not having rights, if you cannot afford to exercise them.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was involved in a very notable or notorious case, the Brandy case. I do not think either political party—the now government or when we were in government—handled Brandy very well. The significance of Brandy is that it really prevents us introducing into the Commonwealth arena that quiet revolution that has occurred in state jurisdictions: that is, the establishment of tribunals where parties can bring matters and have them determined by tribunals.In my own state, we have some really good examples of that. You do not need to rush off to the magistrate or the district court if you have a tenancy matter because we have a Residential and Tenancy Tribunal which hears cases day in and day out, at which parties do not need the assistance of solicitors or barristers or QCs. They do get justice, affordable justice, and they have access to the law. That does not prevent something, on a matter of law, being taken to a higher tribunal. I am trying to emphasise the accessibility for ordinary citizens. We also have the Guardianship Board, which is another example of a tribunal acting in a very difficult area of personal relations and doing an excellent job.Last, but not least, we have the Small Claims Tribunal in my state where, again, you can take matters before it without a solicitor, without a barrister and without a QC and get settlement of your dispute. In a sense, this preserves the very high expertise associated with district courts or supreme courts or appeal courts to core legal matters. It opens up the law to ordinary citizens like those in my electorate. In addition to that, we have always had access to the Ombudsman and we have access to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.It is true that, under Labor, expenditure increased dramatically for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government members are saying that the commission grew so rapidly that somehow we need to cut it back. I think that is a very poor argument to be offering in this debate. With the Ombudsman there was no 500 per cent increase in growth that we can refer to, and yet the Office of the Ombudsman suffered a significant cutback equal to what has happened to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. We always considered that these bodies were totally independent and outside the exercise of executive power.What does that mean? It means that ministers should not be able to direct them. Part of the changes to this is that before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission intervenes in a court case on behalf of a citizen or classes of citizen, they have to get the approval of the Attorney-General. We cannot say that this is an independent body and have that ministerial veto. I think it is terribly unfortunate. Of course, when you cutback the budget and cutback the staff of an organisation—I know people say that you have to do more with less—the reality is that you are denying citizens access to that body.That was the case with the Ombudsman: you have really decided that the Ombudsman and her staff will be handling fewer matters. In other words, when there is a meritorious case for which they believe a good case operates for intervention, the Ombudsman will have to say no because of a lack of resources. I do not think this is something to be proud of.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is a body that has assisted in our region in setting up other human rights commissions. When they were in Indonesia and assisted in the establishment of the human rights commission in Indonesia, many people were very sceptical about how effective such a body could be, given the way the country was being governed. I think the most objective consensus of opinion is that the Indonesian human rights commission has done an outstanding job. Who was involved there in assisting its setting up, and why would you want to truncate the activities of such an organisation?It is true that bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General's office will always be an irritant to a government of the day because they will be providing unsolicited advice on behalf of citizens about what changes need to be made. I think we have had some tremendous reports by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It was the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that really pushed the envelope to say that the Defence Force needed to remove its discrimination against homosexuals.I can recall that I was opposed to such an approach, and that there were all sorts of dire predictions about what would happen if that change came. Of course, history shows that that change has been implemented with a minimum of fuss and that our defence forces are as good as they have ever been. But there is no doubt that the government of the day did not want that report. So it is with the stolen children's report. In my state, the practice of taking Aboriginal children away from their families and placing them in orphanages, allegedly to better assist the children, continued up to the 1960s. I am sure that report was not particularly welcomed but it was an important report for the nation and particularly for those children involved.The issue of the independence of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is a vital one. The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) said in his speech that the government had examined the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and determined that it was top heavy. Could a government member explain to the House what the process of that examination was? Was it an efficiency report by the Auditor-General? Did the government hire McKinsey to do a study of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission? Did McKinsey recommend these changes? What was the process that determined the structure? What was the process that determined that two of the three deputy presidents should be removed because the structure was top heavy?I believe the situation is that there was no proper process of review, and that this, like the Ombudsman, was a body that the conservatives had targeted in opposition and were not going to miss when they came to government. I am very pleased that the opposition is totally opposed to the changes in this bill, and that the opposition is highlighting that it is ordinary citizens who will miss out on another avenue of redress available to them—just as, regrettably, is happening with the Ombudsman. I am pleased that the shadow minister has indicated that, if we win government at the next election, we will never implement these changes. If we are still in opposition, we will continue to oppose the changes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, to become the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous542214:00:005422Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On indulgence, I express to the Australian community the concern that the government, and I know the opposition, feel about the impact of the floods, particularly but not only in East Gippsland. My colleague the member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has been in touch with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer), conveying to him in first-hand detail some of the impact of that devastation. I spoke last night to the member for Patterson (Mr Bob Baldwin), who described in detail the impact of the weather and the floods in his electorate.I know that all Australians are particularly reminded at this time of the vulnerability of rural people to the vicissitudes of the seasons. There is something particularly heart-wrenching about somebody who has just passed out of drought now having their livelihood destroyed by flood. It does drive home to all of us the extraordinary vulnerability of these men and women on the land.14:01:005422Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—On indulgence, I thank the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his remarks and agree with him completely. It is a terrible irony that, having come from one weather induced crisis to a second, they should again have to go through the terrible cost to them in their personal lives in the way in which they have. These occasions also remind us, I think, of the extraordinary reliance we all have as a people, because of our very difficult natural conditions around the country, on emergency workers and on the various emergency services both official and unofficial and the volunteers who serve within them. Though this occasion has not been, as far as I can see, life threatening to any of the emergency workers, many of them are, and we owe them a very great deal.The thoughts of the opposition go to those folk who have experienced great personal hardship and sorrow due to the consequences of that flooding. We wish them all the best. Our condolences, too, go to their parliamentary representatives. As is always the case when these issues arise, one of the values of the system of representative government that we have is that parliamentary representatives, whatever their political hue, are always there to look after the needs and concerns of their constituents and, ultimately, bring to the attention of governments the requirements that are upon them as a result of the emergencies that they confront.Questions Without Notice542354235423Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling the House yesterday:. . . I have never been guaranteed a front page by any newspaper in my political career.. . . . . . . . .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.Prime Minister, have you seen today's Courier-Mail , which states that you were asked to write specifically about the importance of majority government in Queensland and reasons not to vote for One Nation, page 1 was guaranteed, and your staff had begun the article but then told the paper that you had personally declined the offer? Prime Minister, haven't you misled the House?5423Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No, I have not. The situation as conveyed to me was as I described.54235423Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. With regard to the extensive flooding in the East Gippsland area, could the minister outline what Commonwealth assistance is available for those people affected? I thank this government for the support of farmers right across both areas of Gippsland at this time.5423Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question. I can indicate that I and my colleagues in government recognise the close association that the member for McMillan has, along with the member for Gippsland, with this issue and how they continually bring forward rural issues generally. As the Prime Minister indicated, the member for Gippsland is currently travelling in the flood affected area, his electorate, where a state of emergency was declared last night by the Victorian government.I think it is important at this point to indicate to the House the extent of this damage. There are record flooding levels in East Gippsland in Orbost, Lakes Entrance and the Paynesville area. Several of the areas in that region have become isolated due to floodwaters. There have also been some significant wind storms associated with the heavy rains, and that has damaged homes and knocked down trees. In addition to that, the stock losses are expected to be very high because many farmers have been unable to move their stock to higher ground due to the swiftness of the rising water.Perhaps most importantly—and, again, the Prime Minister indicated this—as a result of the region having been subjected to an extended drought period over the past 3½ years, a huge amount of land degradation has taken place. What has occurred is that topsoil has been lost and river banks have been eroded—that is enormous and follows on from the drought. The member for Gippsland has indicated only just this morning that particularly hard hit is the Omeo Valley.We have noted, and appreciate very much, that some 500 state emergency services staff and volunteers have been out attempting to combat the floods and storm damage. They have worked tirelessly, saving lives and saving property over the last several days, and we are all grateful for that particular effort. As I indicated, last night the Victorian Premier announced a state of emergency and indicated that he would do whatever it takes to assist the residents.I think it is important to indicate briefly what the Commonwealth role is in cases of natural disaster. We provide assistance on a dollar for dollar basis when each of the states and territories exceed a threshold. At a certain point, over another threshold, we provide some $3 for every $1 the states provide. Specifically, the Commonwealth will reimburse Victoria for 50 per cent of all outlays in relation to the provision of personal hardship and distress relief. That includes emergency food, clothing, accommodation and home re-establishment grant Debate interrupted.We will provide 50 per cent of expenditure in relation to psychological counselling relief. We will provide 50 per cent of expenditure incurred in the repair and restoration of essential public assets. That includes roads, railways, schools, hospitals and government buildings. We will provide concessional loans to the Victorian government on very favourable terms, with concessional interest rates if they wish to on-lend to persons for home rebuilding, for voluntary non-profit bodies—such as churches, et cetera—and for farmers and small businesses who are unable to obtain commercial finance.I conclude by saying, as has already been indicated in the House today, that the cruelty of natural disaster visits our communities from time to time and governments must respond. It reminds us of that vulnerability that this nation is subjected to through those adverse weather conditions that visit us all too frequently. I note that, earlier this year, the Northern Territory had a problem with flooding in Katherine. Only last week, we paid out $28 million to the Northern Territory government and we anticipate that $42 million will be paid from Commonwealth funds to the Northern Territory. That is on top of the rescue package announced by the Prime Minister at the time of approximately $10 million to assist individual families and to assist in the repair of the national highway. Governments must respond and ensure that, when communities are in trouble, we are there to assist wherever possible.54245424Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—If I might briefly be indulged, Mr Speaker, that is a generous response and we support it. Prime Minister, in light of the Borbidge government's attempt to secure political survival by negotiating with the One Nation Party, will you categorically rule out attempting to form a government that relies on the votes of One Nation MPs should both Labor and the coalition fail to secure a simple majority of members of the House of Representatives after the forthcoming election? 5424Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In case it has escaped the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, I do not intend to finish with an equality of seats with you lot. We intend to beat you.54245424Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister please outline to the House the progress which has been made in the implementation of the government's Tough on Drugs strategy.5424Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—This week is described as Treatment Works Week and tomorrow is the International Day Against Drug Abuse. I indulge myself by saying to the member for Grey and to all other members of the parliament that the resolve of my government to contribute $100 million to the construction of the Darwin to Alice Springs railway remains undiminished. I also remind the House that I am the first Prime Minister since Federation to honour a promise to build that railway, in contrast to the dishonoured commitment of many of my Labor predecessors.This week, drug treatment and prevention agencies across Australia will be celebrating the effectiveness of treatment in reducing drug problems. The major new development to celebrate in Australia this year is the government's $190 million Tough on Drugs strategy. This strategy is designed to increase the accessibility of treatment and education programs to the community as well as stepping up the fight against the illicit drug trade.Just a few weeks ago, the health minister announced that community and non-government organisations should consider applying for funding under the strategy. The non-government organisation treatment grant program will fund non-government organisations to establish and operate new services for treating illicit drug problems, with an emphasis on filling geographic gaps in the coverage of existing services. A total of $27.7 million has been allocated.The focus of the community partnership initiative is on prevention and the reduction of the use of illicit drugs by young people, and $4.4 million has been allocated. The guidelines for these programs have been developed by the government's new Australian National Council on Drugs, headed by Major Brian Watters of the Salvation Army.I conclude by mentioning briefly some discussion that occurred in the press last weekend about the possibility of heroin trials being conducted in Victoria. The comment was made that there should be a national approach in relation to these matters and that a heroin trial should not be conducted by one jurisdiction in isolation from other jurisdictions. As far as the Commonwealth government is concerned, we remain resolutely opposed to any heroin trials.54255425Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you agree with your major projects facilitator and strategic investment coordinator, Mr Bob Mansfield, who says that he would think twice about investing in Queensland after the emergence of One Nation there and that `the outcome of what we are facing right now is making Australia less governable'? Given that Labor has ruled out any form of political arrangement with One Nation, isn't your refusal to take the same unequivocal stand causing the instability which Mr Mansfield is rightly concerned about? Prime Minister, why haven't you got the leadership to tell all in your party and your coalition partners that they must put One Nation last in the coming election?5425Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is very interesting that the member for Kingsford-Smith should refer to Mr Mansfield's speech, because one of the areas of instability to which Mr Mansfield referred in his speech was the obstructive tactics of the opposition in the Senate. Many Australians find it very strange that a government with a majority of 44 in the House of Representatives should be prevented, through the obstructive, negative tactics of the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Greens, from passing very important government legislation.I have made it very clear in the past and I make it clear again: as leader of the Liberal Party and as Prime Minister, I will be in coalition with only one party, and that is the National Party of Australia. I am very proud of the association that my party has with the National Party. We have brought quality government to this country, as we have done to various states. Over the days ahead, as the implications of the Queensland election sink in, many people who voted for the One Nation Party will say to themselves, `We didn't really intend to elect a Labor government and perhaps we'll think again.'54255425Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Can the minister confirm that exporters are getting their maximum entitlements from the government under the export market development grants scheme? In particular, can he refer to those businesses in my electorate of Hinkler?5425Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. He comes from an export zone of excellence and several companies are eligible under the EMDG scheme in his area. They are all helping to create jobs from exports, and some 204,000 in the direction of the electorate of Hinkler.Let me confirm to the House that next week around 900 cheques will go out under the export market development grants scheme finalisation of arrangements for this financial year. I am pleased to announce that prudent management of the scheme has resulted in a full 100 per cent payout of the entitlements relevant to successful processed applicants. Also, for the first time ever, the tourism industry is getting a full rate of payment from the export market development grants scheme. In fact, there is some $20 million for the tourist industry.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Some interjections from the frontbench would indicate how little they know about this scheme.DT4CREANMr Crean—You cut it!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Yes, we did. We cut out some of the categories—like the one that saw a lady in Melbourne lift $500,000 out of the scheme without exporting one container. She did export herself to gaol. Let me tell you about another one. What about Labor's second cousin clause in the scheme? The second cousin clause allowed second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth cousins of exporters at the other end of the market overseas to come to Australia at taxpayers' expense and abuse the scheme. As a result, we cracked down on the abuse of the scheme that your sloppy management allowed for. So don't give me any cheek about cutting back the scheme.We have an efficient and effective scheme that has overseen the performance of the export market development grants this year. Businesses are going to receive the assistance more quickly. The scheme is being run more efficiently. The grants are generating more exports per grant dollar for Australia than ever before. The export to grants ratio, which in 1996 was 30 to one, will rise to 36 to one this year. The results will also allow me to raise the initial payment for next year's grants from $50,000 to $60,000, giving approximately 200 additional businesses their full grants at the time of assessment without having to wait for distribution at the end of the year. We reformed the scheme. We have made it an effective scheme. We cut out the areas of abuse which Labor perpetrated.54265426Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, why do you on the one hand tell the voters in the leafy suburbs of Bennelong that you will be putting One Nation last while you collude to let the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party and your National Party partners preference One Nation ahead of the ALP? Isn't this a deliberate strategy that can only lay the foundations for electing more One Nation MPs to the Australian parliament?5426Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—There is no such collusion. The situation regarding the decision on Liberal Party preferences is well known. As you sit next to the National President of the Labor Party in this chamber, you would be aware that each party has its own internal structures and cultures in relation to such matters as preselection. This will be determined by the party organisation in accordance with that. So far as the election of One Nation candidates is concerned, I am opposed to the election of any candidates other than Liberal and National Party ones.54265426Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the results of the ABS's May survey of job vacancies? What does it indicate about the outlook for job creation this year in Kingston and across Australia?5426Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kingston for her question and can inform the House that there was a strong rise in ABS job vacancies in the June quarter following strong rises in the previous two quarters and supporting a strong outlook for firm employment growth for Australia generally and, I am sure, for Kingston as well. Job vacancies rose 8.8 per cent over the three months to May, well above market expectations, which were for a fall of 3.5 per cent.Total job vacancies are at their highest level in the history of the series, 28 per cent higher than a year ago in seasonally adjusted terms. This has been led by strong vacancies in the private sector, with private sector vacancies also at their highest level in the series, 32 per cent higher than a year ago. The trend measure of job vacancies also rose strongly, the eleventh consecutive quarterly increase. The other major job vacancies series remains supportive of solid employment growth in the coming months, with both DEETYA and ANZ around their highest levels in the last three years.I should say that, when you are talking about employment growth and creating the right conditions for employment growth, it is important that you lock in low inflation, as this government has. It is important that you have a good interest rate regime, which this government has. Supportive of that is a strong budget position, which the government has also taken steps to address. We would not have had the low interest rates for home buyers in Kingston if we had not been able to address the Labor Party's $10 billion deficit.I would also say that it is important that we continue to look at labour market reforms such as the unfair dismissal laws that the minister for industrial relations has introduced, because the less the burden in relation to employment and the less the drag on employers creating jobs, the greater the opportunity for creating more jobs, and that is good news for more Australians.54275427Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister. My question to the Prime Minister concerns a report in today's Melbourne Age suggesting that he intends to hide the Medicare levy in his new unfair tax system. Prime Minister, are you aware that the following people are currently exempt from the Medicare levy: singles earning less than $13,000, families earning less than $22,000, Defence Force personnel and their families, veterans gold card holders and blind pensioners? Prime Minister, if the Medicare levy is buried in the income tax scales, will this not mean that you will be abolishing the tax concession which these people now enjoy?5427Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Let me take the opportunity of saying to those people that they have absolutely nothing to be concerned about from our tax package. Their position will be fully protected. Indeed, the low income people of Australia will be amongst the people who are supported by this tax package, and I would counsel them not to be disturbed by the fearmongering dishonesty of those who sit opposite. You continue to practise the discredited old politics of running a dishonest fear campaign. All I can say is, `Go on doing it. Make our political day.'MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it was a clear question. Will they retain the tax concession? Will the Prime Minister answer the question? Will those people retain the tax concession?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will resume his seat. Members will not rise, unless they have a valid point of order. The Prime Minister is answering the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—The question is as dishonest as the fear campaign. I say again to those who sit opposite and to the Australian public: we will unveil the tax policy. It will be a fair tax policy. It will remove the inequities of Labor's system. It is very interesting that the member for Melbourne Ports used the word `collusion' in a question that he asked me. Let me say this: the only collusion going on in Australian politics at the moment is between the Australian Labor Party and One Nation to stop Australian battlers have a fairer tax system.54275427Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. There are particular disadvantages, as we all know, to access in education faced by young people in regional Australia. What has the government done to assist young people in regional Australia?5427Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Indi for his question. Expanding opportunities for young people, particularly young people in rural and regional Australia, is, of course, a top priority of this government. I know of the member for Indi's commitment to educational opportunities for young people in his electorate.The government has put in place comprehensive measures to ensure that young Australians in rural areas do not miss out on the expanding education and training opportunities that this government has put in place. Last week, I announced that $525,000 would be provided by the government for the Rural Youth Information Service in 1998-99, and this service provides information to young people on education and training opportunities in regional and rural Australia.It is interesting to note the tremendous increase in the take up of rural traineeships by young people in regional Australia. Last year, the number of regional youth in traineeships jumped some 65 per cent. It is also important to note that access to regional universities is rising quite significantly. In fact, the enrolments at regional universities are growing much more rapidly than enrolments in universities across Australia generally. Student numbers in regional universities last year were up by 7,000, and this is a particularly rapid growth. Perhaps I should also make the point that this government has looked at the capital needs of regional universities, and 13 out of the 20 grants from the capital development pool have gone to universities in regional Australia.The Prime Minister made the point yesterday that the youth allowance is going to be very significant in opening opportunities for young people in country Australia. I draw attention particularly to the fact that, for the first time, students aged between 16 and 25 will be able to get rent assistance, up to $74.50 per fortnight—and 70,000 young Australians will benefit from this feature of the youth allowance. Probably most of those, certainly a great many of them, will be in regional and remote Australia.Finally, last week I announced that the government would be establishing a national youth round table, and 50 young Australians between the ages of 15 and 24 will be coming together to advise the government on youth issues. The government will make particularly sure that the youth at this round table are representative of regional Australia and that the bush is fully heard in the round table consultations. The coalition is making sure that opportunities for regional youth are continuing to expand, and it has an outstanding record in this regard.54285428Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is also to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, do you recall the coalition's 1996 youth policy commitment that `a Howard government will meet frequently with organisations such as the peak youth community sector body, the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition'? Minister, why did you break this promise by failing to meet even once with AYPAC and then deciding to abolish its funding? Having failed hopelessly on youth policy, is this not just a case of the government now trying to silence its critics?5428Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Both in opposition and in government, I have met on a number of occasions with that particular organisation. But let me just say that the government had a three-year contract with AYPAC, and that three-year contract has expired. The government reviewed whether it was getting value out of that contract because the government has, of course, put in place an outstanding range of policies for young people. We have put in place policies for literacy and numeracy and the new national apprenticeship system, and we have expanded opportunities for young people to undertake vocational education in school. All of those outstanding policies were put in place—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the minister was asked a very specific question relating to the funding arrangements and the absence of meetings with this organisation. He was asked for nothing else. This minister, who gets plenty of time in question time in this place to express his views, ought to be told to make his answers relevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not debate the issue. There is a standing order with respect to relevance. With respect to the rest of the Leader of the Opposition's intervention, the minister is responding to the question, but I suggest he takes note of its particularity. I call the minister.BT4Dr KEMP—Young people around Australia these days are seeking increasingly to speak directly to government. They do not believe that a body with an executive of five people can adequately represent their concerns. The government has determined that the 2.7 million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 should have the opportunity to nominate directly to a national youth round table. That round table will give every young Australian in regional and rural Australia and in metropolitan Australia the chance to be nominated and to talk directly with the government. I am pleased to say that the government's announcement has been welcomed by young people around Australia.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Robertson.54285428Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker.MG4LEEMr Lee—Last question, Jim.IK6Mr LLOYD—You said that last time, Michael. My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen suggestions that Australia's outdated and discredited 1930s wholesale sales tax system could be modernised for the 21st century by taxing luxury jets? What affect would further tinkering with the sales tax system have on the fairness and equity of Australia's ramshackle system of indirect taxes?5429Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I appreciate the question. I was rather surprised to see that the Leader of the Opposition said that maybe Australia's indirect tax system could be fixed by introducing a tax on private aircraft. That is what he said on 23 June 1998. He said:This business about family cars being taxed but private aircraft not, if Mr Costello wants to introduce a tax on private aircraft, we'll support it. Tell him to put it in straight away. We'll support it, pass it.I thought that was rather strange because he had 13 years of government to put it, support it and pass it. He apparently came to the conclusion on 23 June, after 13 years of inaction, that the most important reform required to the indirect tax system was to put a tax on private jets. As the Prime Minister asked, why would you tax motor vehicles 22 per cent and private jets nothing? Our view is that, in relation to indirect taxes, you should have the same rate. That is our view.Let me also ask some other questions. Labor wants to tax pens and crayons at 22 per cent but antique, gold-plated fountain pens at nothing. Labor wants to tax household vinyl floor tiles at 12 per cent but household marble floor tiles at nothing. Labor wants to tax biscuits at 12 per cent and caviar at nothing.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order to do with relevance. The Treasurer was asked a very specific question about whether or not he had seen a view expressed on the need to tax private jets and what comment he had on that. I would say that he has strayed a long way from the question that was asked of him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition would know that the question certainly related to tax and where tax was being ap plied. I think the Treasurer was telling the House. I call the Treasurer.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Labor wants to tax children's painting sets at 22 per cent but a Van Gogh at nothing. Labor wants to tax peanuts at 12 per cent but lobster and prawns at nothing. Labor wants to tax wrapping paper at 22 per cent but gold wallpaper at nothing. The one thing we know about the Labor Party is that the Labor Party is absolutely addicted to the wholesale sales tax. Make no mistake about it. In the next campaign, Labor will be fighting for the wholesale sales tax. That is the thing it really cares about.Why does the Labor Party care so much about the wholesale sales tax? Not because it has any logic to it. Why does the Labor Party really care so deeply about the wholesale sales tax? I will tell you why: the Labor Party knows, as it has proved, that if people do not know what the rates are, you can secretly increase them.In 1993 the Labor Party went to an election saying that it was against indirect tax reform. Back then in 1993 we had rates of 10, 20 and 30 per cent, but that was not enough for Labor, was it? Labor knew it could increase those wholesale sales tax rates and, as soon as that election was over, the 10 per cent rate went to 11 and then the 11 went to 12; the 20 went to 21 and then the 21 went to 22; and the 30 went to 31 and then the 31 went to 32.How could you in all honesty support a system that says that vinyl floor tiles are taxed at 12 per cent and household marble floor tiles are not taxed? As most countries around the world have discovered, the fair thing is to have a uniform rate across the board, then you do not get into these arguments in relation to caviar and biscuits. But that takes leadership. Tax reform takes leadership, and leadership is the one thing you will never get out of this Leader of the Opposition.Distinguished Visitors542910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from the People's Republic of China led by the Vice-Minister of Culture, Mr Xu Wenbo. On behalf of the House, I extend to all members of the delegation a very warm welcome to Australia and to the federal parliament.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice543054305430Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and it follows immediately from the answer he has just given about the problems of people not knowing what tax rates are under a WST. Did the Treasurer say on Perth radio this morning that his GST would be `embedded in the price, just as a goods tax is embedded in the price'? Doesn't this mean that his GST, in exactly the same way as the present indirect taxes of which he has been so critical, will remain for consumers a hidden tax? Will he require that the GST content of a price be shown separately and clearly from the tax-free price so that consumers are fully aware of their GST liability? If he will not require that the GST content be shown separately and clearly, why not?5430Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Because, if you have broad-based indirect tax and you tell people that it is broad based and what the rate is, everybody knows what it is. That is the whole idea. But the advantage of a wholesale sales tax and the reason that the Labor Party wants it is that the Australian Labor Party wants to have differential rates on differential goods. The Australian Labor Party wants to ensure that caviar is tax free. The Australian Labor Party wants to tax biscuits at 12 per cent. The Australian Labor Party wants to tax Van Gogh at zero. The Australian Labor Party wants to tax children's painting sets at 22 per cent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition are making so much noise that we cannot hear whether or not their leader wishes to take a point of order. Do you wish to do so?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The point of order is on relevance, Mr Speaker. The Treasurer was asked a specific question as to the difference between his embedding—as he described it— and the current arrangement. He has answered the question and is now irrelevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer can respond within the question frame.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The one thing you know with a broad based indirect tax is what the rate is.DT4CREANMr Crean—Until you put it up.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Hotham talks about putting up rates. We remember 1993, when the Australian Labor Party went to the people of Australia and said, `Vote against indirect taxes.' The rate was then 10 per cent, and it went to 11 per cent. The 11 per cent went to 12 per cent. The 20 per cent went to 21. The 21 per cent went to 22 per cent. The 30 per cent went to 31 per cent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order goes to relevance, Mr Speaker. The question asked the difference between his embedding process and the process that applies to wholesale sales tax. He is now way off the point. He has already answered that question. He will conceal it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no arguing of the question at this time. Within the framework, there is a capacity for the Treasurer to answer.Mrs Crosio and Mr O'Connor interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect and I warn the member for Corio.CT4Mr COSTELLO—You always know when the Leader of the Opposition is on weak ground because of the exaggerated laughter, as we just saw. The great thing about a broad based indirect tax is that you know it is across the board, it is fair across the board, and you know what the rate is. But with wholesale sales tax it is concealed—concealed on rates and goods—and there are no input credits in relation to exports or anything else. But not only did the Labor Party increase, secretly and deceitfully, its wholesale sales tax rates after 1993, they also said that they could pay for income tax reductions without increases in indirect taxes. In fact, they did not say they could pay for it; they said it was l-a-w.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn honourable members. I will not do so again.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Those l-a-w income tax cuts have still not been paid to this day.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Under 304A, I ask the member for Prospect to leave the House for an hour. I have warned the honourable member for Prospect on two occasions. I ask her to leave the House for an hour.The honourable member for Prospect thereupon withdrew from the chamber.54315431Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Could the minister inform the House of the nature of the reforms that will be undertaken on the waterfront following the signing of the framework agreement between the MUA and Patrick?5431Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cowan for his question. When the wharfies voted in Sydney for the agreement with Patrick, they were voting for a reduction in the manning levels in the Port Botany terminal. Just to give members an idea of the extent of the change, in Port Botany as they were voting, the manning levels were just over 320, and what they voted for was an ongoing manning level of 160. That is a very significant change. In one of the regional ports, for example, the manning levels have been over 30. After they voted yesterday, the manning levels will be fewer than 10 people. In terms of remuneration, when they voted, the average annual remuneration was around $90,000 a year. When they voted yesterday, they voted for annual salaries of $58,000. There will be some productivity bonus, but that is tied to achieving a reasonable crane lift rate which is in keeping the government's benchmark productivity rates.When implemented, the agreement will see Australia have internationally competitive benchmarks. Not only will we have internationally competitive benchmarks; we will also see the end of all the rorts and rip-offs which have been supported by the Labor Party in conjunction with the MUA for far too long. So when they sign up to that agreement they sign up to the abolition of the nick, to the abolition of double-headers—the infamous overtime rort which has seen such high income. They also sign up to the end of the order of pick. I refer to the order of pick because the independent Productivity Commission report singled out the order of pick as one of the real problems on the Australian waterfront.We have abolished all those things because we as a government have been publicly prepared to advocate and give leadership to fix up one of the most intractable problems in the Australian economy. The benefit for the Australian community is an increase in annual income—and therefore in living standards—of about $1 billion, and an extra 4,000 jobs. In fact, we had a report on that well before you wrote that letter to Mr Sharp yesterday, Prime Minister, which is indicative of the very extensive work we have done on the economic benefits of these sorts of reforms.In conclusion, one of the matters still before the parliament is the passage of the levy legislation so that this reform package will be paid for by the industry. The Labor Party has been opposed to it because the MUA was opposed to it. Now the MUA is in favour of it but they have been slow ringing the Labor Party, and so now we find that the Labor Party is reluctant to support the legislation. What an irony it is that the only thing standing between the wharfies and their money is the Labor Party. How do I know that in the end it will stand aside? I know—and I say it with absolute confidence—in the end, when it comes to the MUA requiring their dollars and the only thing to be done is to have the Labor Party set aside, what will the Labor Party do? It will do what it is told by the MUA as usual.54315431Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—Has the Treasurer been asked by United States venture capital lobbyists to amend capital gains tax laws? Is capital gains tax treatment of exempt US pension funds wanting to invest in Australia inhibiting investments in our high technology com panies? If so, what is the government's response?5432Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I would not rule out my having been asked, although it has not come to the top of my attention in recent weeks. I receive numerous submissions and requests in relation to reducing taxes of various kinds, and I have no doubt that there would be lobbyists for venture capital funds who have made representations to me, my office or my department from time to time. You do hear the argument on quite a number of occasions—I have heard it—that a reduction in capital gains tax would help venture capital projects in Australia, but I point out that we already give considerable assistance to venture capital projects in Australia not only through pooled development funds but also through our business innovation funds and through a number of the measures which were actually outlined in the statement by the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism at the end of last year.I am not for a moment saying that everything about our tax system in the capital gains tax area is perfect; clearly there is a great deal of complexity. But the government has outlined the primary areas in which it believes tax reform would help the Australian public: the reform of indirect tax; a reform of personal income tax, particularly the impact of top marginal rates on average income earners; the interplay between the social security and income tax systems which penalise low income earners; and a reduction of complexity in relation to the business income tax system which is fraught with difficulty and complexity. As I have outlined, in accordance with the five principles that the Prime Minister laid down, they form the focus of the government's attention to tax reform.54325432Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of progress with the implementation of the Job Network? Has the minister seen reports of a survey of Job Network members purporting to reflect the views of Job Network members? Is the minister aware of comments undermining the credibility of the report?5432Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Makin for her question. The Job Network is one of the most significant social reforms of the last 50 years. Although it is still in its very early days, I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Job Network is already performing very well. There are many thousands of vacancies now being lodged every week with the Job Network. Indeed, there are more quality jobs now on the national job vacancy database than there ever were with the Commonwealth Employment Service. The most disadvantaged are proving to be particularly assisted by the Job Network. Some 40 per cent of job placements are for the long-term unemployed. All job seekers are benefiting. Indeed, some 20 per cent of the total vacancies filled by members of the Job Network are going to people for whom the government is not paying a fee.Despite some very inaccurate press reports, which probably result from the campaign being waged by the Commonwealth Public Sector Union against the Job Network, the fact is that referrals from Centrelink are on target. My department is working with Centrelink to increase the number of referrals above target. Some members may have seen newspaper reports today about comments by an organisation called Jobs Australia, through Mr David Thompson, purporting to identify flaws in Job Network. Members of the House should know that many of the organisations associated with Jobs Australia are outraged by this report. They regard it as a poor report and quite inaccurate. One of these organisations that belongs to Jobs Australia is an organisation called Job Power. Job Power has written to me to say:We were approached to complete a Jobs Australia telephone survey regarding the provision of FLEX 3 services and elected not to do so. We felt the survey lacked any statement as to its aims and objectives and was poorly presented. It also requested information which was commercial-in-confidence.Other Job Network providers are very angry at the remarks that were made by Mr Thompson maligning their operations. A media release issued by the Ballarat Community Education Centre said:The federal government's Job Network system is working extremely well, and negative comments surrounding the current report from Jobs Australia are inconsistent with reality. Our employment arm, Ballarat Employment Service and Training, has found the new system far more effective than previously existed under the old CES. Referrals to us from Centrelink have exceeded our expectations. Payments due to us have been paid promptly. One can only wonder at the motivating factors behind comments condemning a new employment system which in the experience of numerous providers is performing extraordinarily well.This government is committed to improving services in employment placement for employers and for unemployed people. The Job Network system is performing well on target. It is right on track. Already it is performing well ahead of the former CES, and I want to congratulate all those members of the Job Network for putting so much of a contribution into their local communities.54335433Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and it follows on from his last answer to me. If the Treasurer justifies his GST being hidden from consumers on the grounds that `everyone will know the rate and it will apply across the board to everything', how is his system going to handle goods and services that are exempt or zero rated? Or is he saying that there won't be any goods and services in those categories?5433Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We like to amuse the members of the Labor front bench who find these things so interesting but we see these little traps of giving alternative A or alternative B, and we take neither of them. They are little linguistic traps. If the Labor Party is so interested in making disclosure of taxes on goods, why doesn't the Labor Party insist that toilet paper have 22 per cent added to it at the cash register, as is their tax plan?VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer remains relevant at the moment, I hear the point of order from the Deputy Leader.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—With the utmost respect, Mr Speaker, you would be the only person in this parliament who thinks so.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of his front bench remain silent, we can hear him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If the Labor Party believes in full disclosure, why doesn't it insist that its tax—the wholesale sales tax—is shown on toothpaste as plus 12 per cent?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will remain relevant to the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If you wanted full disclosure of indirect taxes, as the Labor Party appears to now insist on, why wouldn't the Labor Party at the next election have fruit juice plus 22 per cent at the cash register?VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, the question was not whether there should be disclosure on everything, but if the Treasurer says it is unnecessary because everything is taxed and everyone knows the rate, what is he going to do about those goods which are exempt? Or isn't going to exempt anything? That was the question and he is not answering it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader will resume his seat. The Treasurer will address the question asked of him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It is about the disclosure of indirect tax on goods. And the Australian Labor Party wants to now say, after 13 years, that it wants at the cash register goods to be shown with tax price. And I am saying that, if that were the case, you would have to show that there is, in relation to toilet paper, a 22 per cent Labor tax. I want to also read out a prepared statement in relation to this which says:There is no logical justification for a tax which discriminates against manufactured goods compared with services—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Deputy Leader, if you insist on making so much noise there is no chance of knowing whether the question's reply is in order or out of order. I suspect you are the ones at the moment who are preventing my hearing the question—and I suspect everybody else too. I call the deputy leader, on a point of order.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—On relevance, Mr Speaker, will you please put him out of his misery?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The deputy leader will not make points of order that are not points of order, that are in total conflict with the standing orders.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It continues:There is no logical justification for a tax which discriminates against manufactured goods compared with servicesparticularly in a society which has seen services replace goods as the dominant field of economic activity. Moreover the existing wholesale sales tax is fraught with anomalies and complexities which render administration and compliance unduly burdensome.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer should respond to the question. He is now moving way off the point.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I could not have put it better myself, Mr Speaker.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They are the words of the Australian Labor Party, and I tender them. If the Australian Labor Party says that prices should be disclosed on goods at the retail cashout, look for their policy in relation to toilet paper, biscuits and orange juice. It will not be to put it on at the retail level. It will not be to disclose it. The question is fraudulent, as is Labor Party policy.54345434Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the Australia government's reaction to Bishop Belo's meeting with President Habibie? Can the minister inform the House of the Australian government's position on developments in East Timor?5434Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question. I know he is one of the members of the House who is deeply concerned about the situation in East Timor and has followed the issue in a very mature and constructive way. The government welcomes the discussions that have taken place between President Habibie and Bishop Belo. These talks have, we believe, been very helpful in taking the issue of East Timor forward. The government has continuously argued since we were elected to office that we wanted to see a reduction in the military presence in East Timor, and to allow the people of East Timor a greater say in their own affairs. It is pleasing, therefore, that President Habibie has indicated he is prepared to reduce the number of troops in East Timor and to explore options for granting a greater degree of autonomy.East Timor is a deeply divided and troubled place. A satisfactory resolution to the problems facing East Timor will require the development of a dialogue amongst the people of East Timor and, of course, with the government in Jakarta. Our experience in assisting with the Bougainville peace process shows that the people of a divided community can only be brought together through a process of patient dialogue. The Australian government does not think for a moment that simplistic solutions and slogans will solve delicate problems like that of East Timor.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice543454345434Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—On Tuesday, the member for Dickson asked whether the income of a person's step-parent was taken into account in establishing eligibility for the youth allowance. I can confirm that a young person's entitlement to the youth allowance depends on the income of both their natural parent and their step-parent unless the young person is independent. This arrangement mirrors that which has been in place for the family allowance since 1993. It has obviously been a very bipartisan position over a number of years that step-parents be included in the parental means test. It ensures that assistance is targeted to those who most need it by measuring the capacity of the family to support their children. Put simply, the additional income of a step-parent places the family in a much better position than a comparable sole parent family. The parental means test also recognises that some step-parents are supporting children from previous relationships. Where that happens, any child support paid out is deducted from the amount of income assessed in the youth allowance.Miscellaneous543515:01:005435Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—On indulgence, I want to say a few words about the member for Melbourne Ports, Clyde Holding. This may be the member's last day in parliament, as he will be away next week and we are not sure whether an election will be called before we return in August. As he is a long-serving member of this House, I would not like him to leave without my putting a few words on the record about his distinguished career in both this House and in the Victorian parliament.It is 36 years since Clyde Holding was elected to the Victorian parliament and 21 years since he was elected to the federal parliament. In that time, Melbourne Ports has rarely been easy for him to win. It has been held by an unstinting, good, old-fashioned community focus on the part of its local member. I cannot think of a single politician who is closer to his local community than Clyde. Having attended one or two of the farewells, I know that the people of Melbourne Ports are sad to see him go.Even while being an exemplary local member, Clyde has also nevertheless held very challenging positions during his political career. Some have been in the ministry, where he did excellent service for a very lengthy time in the Hawke government. In his previous parliamentary life, he was a distinguished Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian state parliament. As a federal parliamentary colleague and former ministerial colleague, I pay tribute to the way that he has conducted two of his passions in political life. One has been his concern for the Aboriginal community. As the minister for Aboriginal affairs, he oversaw some very groundbreaking legislation and a number of actions which I think helped to restore a sense of dignity and belonging to the Aboriginal community in our nation. The community is indebted to him for the things he did.The other passion he pursued was the needs and concerns of the Australian Jewish community. He faithfully represented some of the views they hold on the issue of an inclusive nation in the way that he conducted his affairs in this place. He also consistently raised foreign policy issues in this place and elsewhere, one in particular being the state of Israel.Clyde was given the difficult portfolio of Aboriginal affairs at his own request after the 1983 election victory. As a state politician, he had participated in one of the early land rights demonstrations in Melbourne in the early 1960s over land title to Lake Tyers in South Gippsland. He was a pioneering minister in appointing the first ever Aboriginal head of the then Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Charles Perkins. His passionate commitment to Aboriginal land rights suffered heavy weather throughout his time as Aboriginal affairs minister. He was part of a long struggle on that issue, which was rewarded ultimately in the Native Title Act and the decision of the High Court which initially underpinned it.Clyde has been a passionate politician. He has taken up critical issues in this place, whether they happened to be popular or not. He has sought throughout his life to see every Australian citizen feel a sense of comfort and have an opportunity for creativity in the nation in which he or she lives. He will be a person long remembered in this place by those of us who have had the privilege to serve with him. He will be a person long remembered by his Labor Party colleagues in Victoria as a faithful servant in the very toughest of times.I reflect on Clyde as a man who taught me a very great deal in my early political career. He set on the odd occasion examples that oppositions might follow at the federal level, including one description of a process that he used called `going to the mattresses'. This is not available to us under the standing orders in this place. Nevertheless, the standing orders permitted that sort of filibustering activity in Victoria. When there were key issues of community concern, he was able to use the Victorian parliament to send a level of concern right down to the wire. So he is a person who has made a real contribution to Australian life. He has had the opportunities given to him to make that contribution, and he has seized every one of them.15:07:005436Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—On indulgence, I support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). In so doing, I would not want to validate any theories about the timing of the next electoral contest in Australia. Out of courtesy and friendship towards the member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), I record the obvious fact that, whenever the election next takes place, he is not offering himself as a candidate for the Australian Labor Party in Melbourne Ports. When that election comes, he will be leaving us. The member for Melbourne Ports has been a great servant of his party. He fought as Leader of the Opposition in Victoria at the time of the long ascendancy of the Liberal Party, first under Sir Henry Bolte and then under Dick Hamer and, ultimately, Lindsay Thompson.It was not an easy time for the Labor Party, just as historically there have not been easy times on our sides of politics. But these things happen in the history of both sides of politics. To have been a leader of the opposition in Victoria for the Labor Party at the time was certainly not a time that perhaps he would have chosen had he had some say in the time that he entered the political scene.But 36 years of public life is a long time, and I think it is important—at a time when the institution of parliament and the contribution of what is now in the modern colloquium called mainstream political parties is under constant derision and attack—that, on occasions, there be a defence of the contributions on both sides undertaken by people on both sides.On behalf of the coalition parties, I want to compliment Clyde Holding on the contribution that he has made to public life in Victoria and in Australia. I know he has had some great passions. He has been very closely identified in his public life, as I have, with the Jewish community of Australia, and I know the depth of his feeling on the state of Israel and the interests of Jewish people all around the world. It is a sentiment that I feel very strongly about, and I identify very strongly with the views that he has expressed on that subject.Of course, the member and I do not share all that many views in common politically, but I have always seen him as a tough fighter for his cause and as somebody who has worked very hard for his community.I remember very well a conversation I had with him as we both walked out the door over there—I think it was in 1991; it was around the time of the first contest between Mr Hawke and Mr Keating for the leadership of the Labor Party—when each of us was reflecting on our years in politics. He remarked to me then how he had found, despite the fact that he was no longer on the front bench of the then government, a great deal of peace and contentment in representing his constituents. He found a great deal of satisfaction in simply putting their cause. He thought that there was a place in this parliament for people who saw their career beyond any particular office in a party but simply in terms of public service.So, Mr Speaker, I would not want the opportunity to go by without recording my respects for him and for his contribution to public life. I would not like to speculate as to how many more times I will see him sitting over there—I simply make no comment on that—but, lest it were thought there was any lack of charity on our side in relation to people who had made a contribution to their party, whatever that party may be, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!15:10:005436Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDINGCH4Melbourne PortsALP00—I thank both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for their more than generous comments. I must say I have enjoyed my life in politics. Thirty-six years is a long time. I take some pride, I might say, in the fact that I have never actually been thrown out of either parliament, and that requires some skill over 36 years.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That can always be corrected!CH4Holding, Clyde, MPMr HOLDING—If I might give a hint to some of my younger colleagues, the English language provides a great facility in its width to malign your opponents, and if you use the right words you can get away with it. The reason I say that is that there are some highly offensive words in the English language, but they are rarely used—or rarely used commonly. Time and again I have been able to use those words with the confidence, because they are so rarely used, that nobody takes any objection. So, for younger members, I suggest you go to the English dictionary and develop that facility.I must say one of the things that I find disturbing about this parliament as an institution is that it has none of the capacity, in many ways—except when perhaps members go on parliamentary delegations or are working together on committees—for the sort of genuine camaraderie which never interfered with political ideals that existed in the Old Parliament House. It is going to be a long time, I feel, before we ever see again the kind of relationship that developed between Jim Killen and Fred Daly. I think that is sad because, in my time in parliament, irrespective of people's ideological or political beliefs, the average member really comes into the parliament highly motivated in terms of trying to create a better society, whether that is in the state parliament or not.The state parliament enabled all sorts of relationships to develop, and confidences were made and confidences were kept. I had a relationship with Henry Bolte which meant that, as a result of one fairly late night in his office, I knew before any member of his own party of his intended resignation. He did not feel any difficulty with telling me because he knew that a confidence would be kept—and it was kept. There were many occasions, because of the intimacy of a smaller parliament, when people were able to reach out to each other across the political divide. I think the very size of this parliament is such that that becomes more difficult.I remember early on in state parliament I was checking the Hansard—my own speech, I might say—and that old veteran of the Senate in this parliament, Pat Kennelly, walked in and said, `Wh-wh-what are you d-d-doing?' I said, `I'm checking the Hansard'. He said, `D-d-don't w-w-waste your t-t-time. Hansard w-w-will always m-m-make a b-b-better speech for you th-th-than you m-m-make yourself.' I must say I have found that true. I would like to record my thanks to Hansard and, indeed, to all members of the staff of this parliament. We do not realise to what extent they do a job for us, always with unfailing courtesy and with deep regard.I extend thanks to the great facility that is available to all members as a result of the library service, which I think is without parallel anywhere in Australia. If properly used, it makes life a lot easier for all of us.I would also like to say this: one of the experiences I have had on the Human Rights Committee of Parliamentarians for the IPU is to understand how lucky we are in Australia to be the beneficiaries of the Westminster system. Whatever the dialogue that goes on in strong terms across this chamber, none of us ever fear that we are going to be subject to arbitrary arrest. There are currently some 200 democratically elected members of parliaments who are in gaol. From one view, they have done better than those who have been subject to political assassination. Whatever view you might take about the republic, one of the great contributions the British have handed down to us is the Westminster system. We should never devalue it; it is absolutely integral to the way this society advances.I am pleased to have been honoured to be in this parliament. Some portfolios you enjoy more than others. I have never regretted having asked for the portfolio of Aboriginal affairs. Indeed, one of the better experiences in my life is that I and my family in fact have skin with two Aboriginal communities, and that is a very important factor at a family level. I wish all members of this parliament well in the future. You will not mind if I am a little biased and say that I wish my own colleagues good luck in the near future. I have enjoyed my time here, and I value the experience that I have had. I commend this institution to all Australians, because without it we would be a lesser people. I believe that most members here, indeed all members here, have a commitment to the welfare of their fellow citizens which I think will take this parliament into the future and serve the Australian people well.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would like to add my own remarks and say to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports that I have enjoyed his company, I have enjoyed his contributions and, above all, I respect the role he is now playing representing all parliamentarians around the world on the committee to which he just referred. As many may not know, Clyde is the Chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Human Rights Committee of Parliamentarians and, as such, has a particular role in trying to ensure that those to whom he referred are recognised and to a degree protected. I wish both Clyde and his family, Judy and Isabella, well, and we all appreciate the years we have served together.Personal Explanations543815:17:005438Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Last night the ABC TV news published a surgically selective quote from myself which, when taken in isolation, completely misrepresented my position on the proposed Melbourne to Darwin railway project. My opening remark to the doorstop interview selectively broadcast did question the general financial viability of major general freight-rail networks, but it was followed by words that said that as this project was being promoted and investigated by private enterprise with private enterprise money, it should therefore be supported by all Australians. Furthermore, I subsequently issued a written media release at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 June 1998, some nine hours before the TV screening which said in part:A respectable Australian Company announces a feasibility study into a major private infrastructure project and instead of welcoming that Company's initiative the Australian media chooses to concentrate on political conspiracy theories, Wilson Tuckey, Federal Member for O'Connor said today.The efforts of the ABC editors to selectively quote from my interview in this fashion and ignore my press release is just further evidence of the bias emanating from that organisation.Auditor-General's Reports543810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 50 of 1997-98 entitled Performance audit: restructure of meat and livestock statutory organisationsMotion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 50 of 1997-98; and(2) the report be printed.Documents54385438Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act—Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Report—Australia's health 1998.Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act—Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for period 1 October to 31 December 1997.Committee reports—Government responses to parliamentary committee reports—Response to the schedule tabled on 3 December 1997.United Nations—Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination—Communication No. 7/1995—Decisions: Paul Babaro v. Australia (CERD/C/51/D/7/1995).Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—Outlines of communications 1998 Nos. 102, 106. Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Communications—No. 560/1993—Views: A v. Australia (CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993) together with Australian government response.No. 579/1994—Decisions: Klaus Werenbeck v. Australia (CCPR/C/59/D/579/1994).No. 692/1996—Views: A. R. J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996).No. 706/1996—Views: Mrs G. T. v. Australia (CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996).Outlines of communications 1997 Nos. 737, 762,772, 776 and 1998 No. 802.I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the government response to the schedule tabled in the House by the Deputy Speaker in the sittings of 3 December 1997.Leave granted.The response read as follows—ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS (House, Standing)Torres Strait Islanders: a new deal—A report on greater autonomy for Torres Strait IslandersThe Government response was tabled on 23 June 1998.Review of Auditor-General's audit report No 26, 1996-97—Phase II of audit—Community Development Employment Projects Scheme: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CommissionThe Government response was tabled on 4 December 1997.Review of Auditor-General's audit reports No 36, 1992-93; No 1, 1993-94 Volume 3, Sections 1.13—1.39; and No 27, 1993-94, Sections 16.19—16.24The Government response was tabled on 4 December 1997.BANKING, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (House, Standing)Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's 1993-94 annual report and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's 1993-94 annual reportThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.Taxing relaxing: Report on the impact of Australia's taxation regime on the tourism industryThe Government response will be tabled at the earliest possible date.CERTAIN FAMILY LAW ISSUES (Joint, Select)Funding and administration of the Family Court of AustraliaThe Government response was tabled on 3 March 1998.COMMUNICATIONS, TRANSPORT AND MICROECONOMIC REFORM (House, Standing)Planning not Patching—An inquiry into federal road fundingThe Government response is being considered, and will be tabled when this process is complete.ELECTORAL MATTERS (Joint, Standing)Industrial Elections: Report of the inquiry into the role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial electionsThe report's recommendations are currently being considered. The Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.The 1996 Federal Election: Report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 Federal Election and matters related theretoThe Government response was tabled on 8 April 1998.EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING (House, Standing)Youth employment: A working solutionThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings.Truancy and exclusion from schoolA number of the report's recommendations require further consultation with various Commonwealth agencies prior to the response being finalised. The Government response is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittingsENVIRONMENT, RECREATION AND THE ARTS (House, Standing)Rethinking the funding of community sporting and recreational facilities: A sporting chanceThe recommendations of the report are currently being considered by the Government and it is anticipated that the response will be tabled during the 1998 winter sittings.Review of Auditor-General's audit report No 31 of 1995-96—Performance audit—Environmental management of Commonwealth land: Site contamination and pollution preventionThe Government is finalising its response and intends to table it in the 1998 spring sittings.Managing Australia's World HeritageThe Government response was tabled on 8 April 1998.Working with the environment: Opportunities for job growthThe Government has addressed the Committee's recommendations through the Natural Heritage Trust, Green Corps and Work for the Dole scheme. The Government does not intend to respond further.Commonwealth environmental impact assessment processesThe Government is considering options for implementing the COAG Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, which was agreed to in principle by Heads of Government in November 1997. Proposals for reform of environment protection legislation being pursued by the Environment Minister aim to implement the COAG Agreement. The proposed reforms are expected to address many of the matters in the Committee's report. The Government will respond to the report in that context.FAMILY AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (House, Standing)Men's Health—summary reportThe Government response is expected to be tabled before the end of the 1998 winter sittings.Health on Line: A report on health information management and telemedicineThe Government response is expected to be tabled before the end of the 1998 winter sittings.Concessions—who benefits? Report on concession card availability and eligibility for concessionsThe Government response is being finalised and is expected to be tabled early in the 1998 spring sittings.FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (House, Standing)Report of the inquiry into ANAO audit report No 6. 1996-97 on Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfortThe Government response was tabled on 26 May 1998.Reviews of the 1995-96 annual reports of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Securities Commission and the Insurance and Superannuation CommissionThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 1995-96 annual reportThe Government response was tabled on 3 March 1998.Cultivating Competition: Inquiry into aspects of the national competition policy reform packageThe Government response was tabled on 26 May 1998.FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Joint, Standing)Sharpening the focus: Report on a seminar on the Simons Committee ReportThe Government response was tabled on 8 April 1998.From empire to partnership: Report on a seminar on the Commonwealth of NationsThe Government response was tabled on 23 June 1998.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman—Report on Public Seminars 20 and 25 September 1996The Government response was tabled on 23 June 1998.Papua New Guinea Update: Report on proceedings of a seminar, 11 and 12 November 96, CanberraThe Government response was tabled on 28 May 1998.LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (House, Standing)Aspects of section 44 of the Australian ConstitutionThe Government response was tabled on 4 December 1998.The third paragraph of section 53 of the ConstitutionThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.In Confidence: the protection of confidential personal and commercial information held by the CommonwealthThe report is being reviewed to take into account a number of Government decisions made since it was released. The report raises complex issues that require careful consideration in the development of a response.LONG TERM STRATEGIES (House, Standing)Australia's population carrying capacity—one nation—two ecologiesThe Government response is currently being prepared and is expected to be tabled when relevant consultations have been completed.MIGRATION (Joint, Standing)Working holiday makers: More than touristsThe Government response will be tabled as soon as the relevant consultations are completed.Australia's visa system for visitorsThe Government is currently considering its response which will be tabled in the near future.NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES (Joint, Standing)A right to protestThe Government response was tabled on 25 March 1998.NATIVE TITLE AND THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LAND FUND (Joint, Statutory)Native Title Amendment Bill 1997The Committee's recommendations were addressed by debate and Government Amendments to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997. The Government does not intend to table a separate response to this report.PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, RESOURCES AND RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (House, Standing)Managing Commonwealth Fisheries; The last frontierDevelopments in New Zealand Agriculture—Report of a visit to New Zealand, 16-19 June 1997These reports will be addressed in a single Government response which will be tabled during the 1998 spring sittings.TREATIES (Joint, Standing)Twelfth Report—Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation TreatyThe Government response will be tabled as soon as the relevant consultations are completed.Eleventh ReportThe Government response is in preparation and is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings.Tenth ReportAs the report contained no recommendations, the Government does not intend to respond to this report.Ninth Report—Amendments to the Bonn ConventionThe Government response was tabled on 27 May 1998.Eighth report—Treaties tabled on 18 March 1997 and 13 May 1997The Government response is in preparation and is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings.Seventh report—Australia's withdrawal from UNIDO and treaties tabled on 11 February 1997The Government response was tabled on 14 May 1998. Third Report—Two International Agreements on TunaThe Government response was tabled on 26 May 1998.5441Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Request for the Federal Government to review all jet routes from Kingsford-Smith Airport and conduct comprehensive community consultation, fast track a new airport outside the Sydney basin and establish a permanent Sydney Airports Commission from the member for Wentworth—503 petitionersRequest for the Federal Government to review all routes from Kingsford-Smith, conduct comprehensive community consultation and fast track a new airport outside the Sydney basin from the member from the member for Wentworth—176 petitionersApproval for the Federal Government's proposal to privatise Telstra from the member for Calare—8 petitionersOpposition to the Federal Government's proposal to privatise Telstra from the member for Calare—75 petitionersConcern about the Federal Government's cuts to child care from the member for Canberra—172 petitionersMatters of Public Importance5441544110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand (Mr Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for the Prime Minister to provide the leadership necessary to ensure that Australia remains a cohesive society.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—15:20:005441Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The subject of our MPI today deals with the question of what is the primary obligation on everybody in the political system in this nation who seeks to represent our community and who seeks to ensure that our community progresses and advances. That is the obligation on all of us: to ensure that we have a cohesive society in which everybody's talents are recognised, everybody's rights are respected and everybody has an opportunity to create and achieve with no inhibitions on them of an artificial nature or a prejudicial one.That is an absolute obligation on every member of this parliament and on every government that this country has. It is an obligation which, for at least my lifetime in politics and in the time of my memory, has been performed by governments of both political hues—both ourselves and our political opponents. I cannot register any complaint about attitudes that Harold Holt presented in that regard or any complaints about attitudes presented by Prime Minister Gorton in that regard. I have no complaints about attitudes expressed—though there are many other things I might complain about—by Prime Minister Billy McMahon in that regard and, in some respects, I have admiration for the stands taken by Prime Minister Fraser in that regard. All our leaders for the last 30 years have comprehended completely the task of ensuring that every Australian feels relaxed and comfortable about being an Australian, and that every Australian feels a sense of opportunity. That has been something that has come with ease to the leadership of our nation—until now.For the first time—sometimes with overt commission, sometimes with great subtlety, sometimes with what might in football parlance be called `putting in the needle'—a deliberate strategy has been pursued in the last two years to make some Australians feel uncomfortable and other Australians feel cheerful about that prospect. That behaviour by the government has now reaped its own reward, and that reward has been the collapse of its public support due to a party which has taken everything the government has said one point further. The effect on the national reputation, the effect on the cohesiveness of our society, and the effect on our future as a people has been manifold and deleterious.No Australian can stand up today and say in all honesty that we as Australians stand prouder now than we did two years ago. No- one can do that. It is a question we ought to ask, and the honest answer is: no-one can do that. That has not been a product of accident; it has been a product of deliberate decision. The other day, I was interested to read a column by Laurie Oakes on the success that the One Nation Party achieved via Liberal Party and National Party preferences in Queensland. In that column, Laurie Oakes quoted, allegedly, from one of Howard's closest supporters. Laurie Oakes said:Even one of Howard's closest supporters concedes, "The PM has a blind spot on One Nation. No compromise is possible with people who want to destroy you."Also, a person whose devoted task is to ensure that this country attracts its fair share of big opportunities and projects, its fair share of international investment and opportunities for all Australians to develop—Mr Bob Mansfield—yesterday said:The outcome of what we are facing right now is making an almost currently ungovernable Australia less governable. If that does not scare you, it scares the hell out of me.It scares the hell out of Bob, and it scares the hell out of me. The situation which we now confront was foreshadowed not by the Australian Labor Party but by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, when he said that the constant mollycoddling of One Nation by our political opponents has given it a level of respectability it could not have enjoyed otherwise, and that it has put it in a position where it places major elements of the national interest at risk.Mr Fraser's remarks were repeated today in an editorial in the West Australian which goes to the intended preferential behaviour of the WA Liberal Party. It says:If WA Liberals fail to put One Nation last in all electorates, they will in effect be giving it credibility and standing in this State. Pauline Hanson's party prospered in the Queensland election on the legitimacy it gained from its preference deal with the Liberal-National Coalition parties.I have an exceptionally long political memory because I was born in a political family. The struggles of the 1950s live in my mind almost as vividly as the struggles of the 1990s. I watched my father go through hell in the Labor Party from time to time and in the political processes.I remember members of the Labor Party sitting down at each election to determine their how-to-vote cards. The first comment that would come out of the Liberal Party at every election would be: will the Communists be put last? And they were. My father's how-to-vote card in Fremantle—and he was always opposed by Paddy Troy, and his perennial Liberal opponent was a Mr Waghorn—would always go 1, 2, 3, 5, 4. That is how my father' how-to-vote card would go on every occasion when that issue arose. It did not matter that the Communist Party preferences were going the other way. A stand was taken that the Labor Party did not associate itself with revolutionary and exclusive politics. That was the position of the Australian Labor Party, and if somebody ever deviated, even for the convenience of a how-to-vote card, that person lost 10 per cent of his vote as the Liberal Party went ape.What did we then see from our `noble' political opponents—or should I say ignoble political opponents?—in this last performance, sanctioned by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)? When the Prime Minister was encouraged by the Courier-Mail to do something about it, he scuttled away from it. The editor of the Courier-Mail said to the Prime Minister, `Prime Minister, the conservative side of politics is disintegrating. Make a statement to the conservative voters in Queensland that there is a reason to vote for the Liberal and National parties and not for One Nation.' Could he bring himself to do it? No, he could not bring himself to do it.The Prime Minister could not show leadership. He did not show leadership in this instance—and not the leadership that the nation needed but the leadership that his own political party needed as far as that was concerned. The proof of the pudding was ultimately in the eating, and we saw the outcome of that. It offends me deeply that a stable decent Labor government would normally have evolved from that political process, but that did not happen.However, that does not offend me as deeply as the fact that because you failed to treat us as we treated you, instead of one member of One Nation serving in the Queensland parliament, there are now 11 and, as result of that particular process, you have created a set of circumstances which has given the Liberal Party unofficial party status in the Queensland parliament. That is the most ignominious position any major party has ever been in in the Queensland parliament since Federation. Even under the deprecations of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Labor Party had a cricket X1—we survived by one seat—but now the Liberals have not. The Liberals are in that position because of what they did. One decent tory voter after another said, `Enough already, we will not be in this. We will go.'Nevertheless, as a result of the Liberal and National Party preference deal, we see One Nation triumphant on the pages of Aryan Nation—their web site in the United States, a subbranch of the Ku Klux Klan—and Ms Hanson enter the hall of fame. She rode into the hall of fame of the Ku Klux Klan on the backs of the Liberal and National parties in Queensland. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that that occurred as a result of a decision taken by them. What is the position of the Prime Minister on this question of the need for a cohesive society?Ms Worth interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I will not get on to that point, but since I am being heckled I will take it a step further. If we treated you like you treated us, One Nation would now have 21 seats in the Queensland parliament and would be treating with you to provide the Queensland conservative premier. That is what would have happened if we had treated you the same way. We chose not to do that and we chose not to do that early because we recognised One Nation for what it was. I am not talking about One Nation voters.One Nation voters are now so large in number that the original characteristics that went to the formation of this essentially franchised and dictatorial political party, in which its members have no rights, in which its leadership has on all funds raised a 12½ per cent return for their wage, which was founded on race and guns—both propositions on which you are allegedly supposed to stand shoulder to shoulder with us—were not the reason they were so heavily preferenced. They were so heavily supported by the community because of a deep sense of frustration and malaise in the Australian community, but that is no excuse.I do separate the One Nation Party from One Nation voters. The One Nation Party must always be correctly characterised by members of this place because elsewhere it is and because the stances that it takes put very large members of our community into a situation where they feel under a sense of threat. This particular petition here, signed by 10,000 members of the Chinese community and others in Sydney—many of them from the electorate of the Prime Minister—states exactly how they feel in this regard. But how was that characterised by the Prime Minister as he narrowcasted his preference message? He said:Oh, I think, generally speaking, there is a perception that some of the policies of One Nation make people who form some minorities in our community just feel a bit uneasy and a bit unwelcome, and for the first time I've actually heard over the last couple of weeks people who've lived in this country for a very long time of Asian descent say: `Gee, for the first time I just feel a little bit unwelcome.'This is what feeling `a little bit unwelcome' produces—a statement by some 10,000 members of that particular community, which makes up 10 per cent of the Prime Minister's electorate, about the circumstances in which they find themselves, in which they feel their contribution to Australian society is devalued by the Prime Minister.What do we get from the Prime Minister? Not a particular mea culpa—`I have helped create this situation.' What we hear from the Prime Minister is: `Well, I'll do the right thing, but it is up to the constitutional processes of the Liberal Party to do something else.' The constitutional processes of the Labor Party allow a great deal of flexibility, unless the leader of the Labor Party goes to the national executive and decides that it will not. As far as we are concerned, our decision was taken early and our decision was clear-cut, and our decision saved huge numbers of tory members, utterly unworthy though every last one of them is, as it actually happens.So what we have now on the conservative side of Australian politics is simply a spectrum of sympathy with One Nation. The sitting Liberal and National members who right now are considering terms for defection to One Nation are on one end of the spectrum. The National state branches, most of which will swap preferences with One Nation, are a little further on in the spectrum and some of whom might not are a bit further on again in the spectrum. The Liberal state branches which will swap preferences are further on in the spectrum and most of whom will not are further on again in the spectrum. That is the conservative position as far as One Nation is concerned.They are optimising to continue to attempt to exploit the existence of this party, having created for themselves in this process their own hangman but also having created for this country a major debacle in community relations, a major debacle in the international reputation of this country, a major potential economic debacle for the Australian people and something which we Australians have not been for years and years—a community divided against itself on some of the characteristics which individual members of the community have about which they can do nothing but stand helpless in the face of what would wash over them. The leader of the government of this nation cannot stand for a cohesive society. He should go. (Time expired)15:35:005444Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—We have just had a speech from a professional politician of the sort that many Australians feel that they have had more than enough of.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Get your hood on!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—There are many Australians who, in listening to that speech and listening to that interjection, would say to themselves that this is the typical speech of a professional politician who sees in the current political circumstances an opportunity for him and for his party, regardless of the national interest.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—You're a disgrace.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—As we hear the excited interjections from the middle bench of the Labor Party, people would be saying to themselves that this is typical of the poor manners and the inability to have a sensible debate which has degraded the reputation of the parliament.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—We don't take alsatians onto the wharves and wear balaclavas.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And this interjection from a man who calls people who are not members of a union `scabs'.5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—Yes, they are—like you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Charlton will remain silent.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And he denied their right to work. This is typical of the reaction that, quite frankly, many Australians find repulsive and many Australians find objectionable about the political process, and this is why many Australians are saying to themselves about both of the major political parties that basically they have had a gutful and they are going to vote for somebody else regardless. Regardless of what a candidate might stand for, many Australians are saying that they do not like manufactured offence of the sort we have just had from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley).Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Reid is not in his place and will remain silent.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—There are many Australians who do not like pretend indignation. There are many Australians who do not like the exaggerated claims of hypocrisy from one politician to another. In fact, they have just had enough of it. Of the many lessons that came out of Queensland in the recent state election there, one of the loudest was that people expect more of the political process. Even in question time, as we have made efforts this last week to improve the standard of question time, even during that process this week, we have had Labor frontbenchers taking ridiculous points of order, trying to hold up question time and trying to disrupt the ordinary processes of the parliament—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Not like you! Give us a break.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—In the same way that we have the stupid interjections that we have now got. I heard the Leader of the Opposition call on the pantheon of Labor stars to justify his position today and to criticise that of the current government and of the parties in Queensland. A former Leader of the Opposition, a former member for Werriwa, in the 1974 election, as I am reliably informed, had a choice of placing preferences between a Liberal candidate and a candidate for the National Socialist Party, namely, the Nazis, and in fact put them above the Liberals.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—These are facts. In the Brand electorate, the member for Cowan informs me that in the last election the Leader of the Opposition put Australians Against Further Immigration higher on the preference list than the Liberal Party. He talks about his father's record. What about his own record? These are the facts. I make no other claim; I just put the facts on the table. In the Lindsay by-election, the Labor Party put AAFI ahead of the Liberal Party on their preference list. I make no value judgments about that, but I do remark: isn't that an interesting contrast to what he has just said? Quite frankly, that is the hypocrisy which most people have had enough of.There are many explanations for some of the things that happened in the Queensland state election. I will tell you one of the things that impacts on how people vote and how they respond to the politicians of today: the various sagas and episodes of travel rorts which the parliament has seen on both sides of politics. It does not do great justice to the Leader of the Opposition to say, `All this disillusionment about politics started in March 1996.' Why don't we be honest about it? This has been a problem that has been building for some time. Part of it is the fact that some people have done the wrong thing in respect of travel allowance. That is part of it.It is not right for the Leader of the Opposition to come in here and pretend that he has clean hands. He was a senior member of a Labor government that had to deal with Mal Colston taking advantage of—I think defrauding—the travel allowance system back in 1983-84. They had a recommendation from Attorney-General's to send the matter to the police. The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) decided that it would be better for the Labor Party if they denied the advice that they had received and not send it to the police. In other words, they covered it up. They were the Mal Colston defence team. Don't come in here and talk about the public's disillusionment with the political process and pretend that you have no responsibility for it. The fact is that you have a lot of responsibility for it.If we are to have an understanding about what needs to be done to improve the standing of the parliament and the political processes, the first thing we have got to do is to have an honest appraisal of what some of the problems are. I will tell you about one of the other problems that we as a community face: many Australians in the last five or 10 years have had a pretty tough time economically. There are tens of thousands of businesses which are still feeling the leftovers, if you like, the residue, of the 1990 recession—the recession about which a previous Prime Minister, Paul Keating, after he engineered it, had the arrogance and the gall to say, `This is the recession that we had to have.' It is no wonder that people feel cynical about politics when they are told that this is the way you have got to run the place—the worst recession since 1930.Even as people were losing their jobs and their businesses were going bankrupt, they had the additional gall to say, `We're going to have a soft landing.' Do you remember that one? Well, I remember it. And I remember that we on our side of politics were saying, `There are changes to economic policy that you ought to make so as to prevent a recession.' You failed to do them. Why? Because you were bound to the trade union movement, which has always had a very significant influence on the management of economic policy when Labor has been in office. It is no wonder that people are cynical and disillusioned.When you look at the level of unemployment, it is lower today than it was when we came to office. But I would also have to say that we as a government recognise that more needs to be done. Why does it need to be done? Because the level of unemployment is 8.1 per cent, on the last figures. There are no simple solutions to fixing unemployment. There are a lot of things that need to be done.We pick a bone with you, and that bone is to say that we have introduced into this parliament many of the changes that need to be done, we have sent them over to the Senate and the Labor Party has blocked those changes. Let us take a step back and say: why don't we at least honestly recognise that some of the solutions to our problems are obvious?Take the small business community as an example. Why aren't they employing as many people as they might? One of the reasons is that if you put somebody on and you have a problem with them they can end up suing you under unfair dismissal. So we ought to have a complete exemption for small business from unfair dismissal. Do you know what the representatives of small business say about that? They say, `If we had that complete exemption, there'd be an extra 50,000 jobs created.' I reckon that is worth doing. I have not heard one rational argument from the Labor Party as to why they are opposed to providing this benefit for the small business community.Mr Tanner interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is not right either. The interjection just shows you how shallow and superficial that comment is. I will not reply with a string of invectives, which I am tempted to do. I will reply by giving you the facts. With the proposal that we have had in the Senate, we would retain, from the day that a person was employed, various protections against discriminatory conduct. What we would be exempting small business from was the second limb of protections for people—namely, those relating to unfair dismissal. The reason we will do that is that, if we think we have a better balance between the interests of employers and employees, more people will get a job. That is why, and that is worth doing.I refer to that because today's MPI relates to the need for the Prime Minister (Mr How ard) to provide the leadership necessary to ensure that Australia remains a cohesive society. I think we ought to talk about leadership. We ought to have some real leadership on the things that really do count to people—things like getting them a job and economic reforms that will give people a greater chance of earning more, the leadership necessary to change the way we do things in this country so that our exporters can do better.At the moment we are having a great debate about tax reform. Why are we advocating reform of the tax system? There is a simple, practical reason for doing so. Let me give you one example. In Australia today, due to the existing tax system—it is called the wholesale sales tax system—we place a lot of extra costs on manufacturing things. The things that we manufacture in Australia and sell in Australia have to compete against imports. But, in most countries, they have a value added tax system, which means that there is no extra tax built into the cost of things that they produce.What that means in simple terms is that, if you are walking down the supermarket aisle and there is something made in Australia and something brought in from overseas, all other things being equal, the one difference between them is that the thing made in Australia has a tax on it and the thing imported has no tax on it. What is the significance of that? One is cheaper than the other.Most people struggle to make ends meet in the family budget. If something is cheaper than the other, in most cases they do not have any choice: they buy the cheaper thing. It is no good carrying on about imports. We have a tax system that gives a benefit to imports and penalises Australian produced goods and the jobs that go with it.There is a lot of talk about economic rationalism. I think it is crazy to say to politicians that they should be irrational. I think politicians ought to be as logical as possible.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I agree.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am glad that the member for Melbourne agrees with that. I give him marks for that. He produced a paper last year entitled `Rationalism Versus Populism'. It was an excellent paper. I commend it to people to read. One of the things he said in it was that the Labor Party has to resist the temptation of going down memory lane with the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) in pursuing irrational policy.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—That is not a strong point for you at the moment.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—It is a very strong point. You are talking about Pauline Hanson. When we get to the next election, what is going to be one of the great issues? It is going to be fixing up the tax system. I ask people just for a moment to take a step back from the political world and to acknowledge that, if we were having a beer quietly after, whether you were a Liberal—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Are you shouting?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I'll shout. I will regret that. Whether you are a Liberal member, a National Party member or a Labor Party member, everybody knows that abolishing the wholesale sales tax system and changing it to a value added tax system is a good idea. Everybody knows that. You can deny it, but I know it and you know it. If you were shouting me and we were on our fifth beer, you would admit it.What are we going to have in the next election? We are going to have the biggest scare campaign in history, but it will also be the most boring. Its feature in particular will be that, instead of providing leadership on this issue, the Labor Party are going to be hand in hand with One Nation. They will not be pursuing a rational policy but pursuing a policy which they think will win them votes. When this MPI was put up and talked about leadership I thought, `That's fair enough, let's talk about that,' but let's talk about it in a way that actually means something to people, that actually means they have a chance of a job. (Time expired)15:50:005447Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Every so often the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) decides to get into high moral ground mode. I have to say in this debate that if there was one person in the chamber who would be the last person to stand here and try to run the honesty, integrity and high moral ground argument it has to be that minister. This is the fellow who sent the dogs and the balaclava-clad people onto the wharves at midnight to throw workers out of their jobs all around the countryside. This is the fellow who has been involved with his cabinet colleagues in trying to cover up a conspiracy.Minister Reith is probably the gladdest person in the parliament now that there is an agreement between the MUA and the stevedores because the conspiracy case probably will not go ahead. He will not have to sit in the dock and have his performance and his memos to his cabinet colleagues and the companies he paid taxpayers' money to disclosed. In this debate the last person you would front up if you wanted to take the high moral ground and have any credibility in an issue of honesty or integrity is the minister for workplace relations.The simple fact of life is that, as the MPI points out, there has been a monumental absence of leadership in this country in the last two years that has now reached the point where even coalition members understand something has to be done. A couple of weeks ago in my home state of Queensland the voters gave the conservatives the biggest hiding they could have ever imagined. It was all their worst nightmares come at once: a Liberal Party reduced to nine members and a Liberal Party that fails now to have party status in the state parliament. It is a parliament of 89 and the Liberals can manage nine members all-up.It took a crisis like that for some in the coalition party room to get the steel in their backbone to actually stand up and point out a few self-evident facts, self-evident facts that those on the Labor Party side have been pointing out now for the last two years but which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), in a total absence of leadership, has allowed to wander. The simple fact is that, over the course of the last two years, the Prime Minister has been dwarfed in his job month by month to make Billy McMahon now look like an outstanding Prime Minister.I recall well meeting a delegation of Chinese community leaders in my electorate in Brisbane at the end of 1996. They came to me distressed because, for the first time, members of their community were being subjected to abuse and vilification. Their children going to school were being abused and attacked on the bus. Their wives, their family members, were being accosted in shopping centres, abused and threatened. That was happening for the first time.These people who came to see me were not newly arrived migrants. It would not have been any better had they been newly arrived migrants. That would not in any way have made a difference. But the fact is that, in a number of cases, these were people who had been Australians for generations and had never known that sort of discrimination and racist attack that they were being subjected to for the first time in 1996 in downtown Brisbane. That is what was occurring, and those people close to their communities knew that is exactly what was happening.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—That's correct.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—The member for Moreton acknowledges and understands that as well, being the member of a neighbouring constituency. In that circumstance, this nation cried out for some leadership. It cried out for the head of government to take this divisive, racist based policy head-on. What did he do?DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—He squibbed it.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—He squibbed it. He ducked for cover. He adopted the ostrich approach—put your head in the sand and hope it goes away—and it was an ostrich approach that he held right through until a few weeks ago. The first statements that the Prime Minister made in any way seeking to tackle these divisive racist comments were about two weeks ago just before the state election when those in his own party were pointing out to him that they were heading for oblivion in Queensland.It took a poll to tell him there would be no-one from the Liberal Party left in Queensland after the next federal election if he did not do something in a hurry. It took that realisation two weeks ago to get him to say anything at all. For two years he has sat by and allowed this to happen. Worse than that, not only did he just sit by and allow this to happen, whenever anyone did come out and criticise the policies of One Nation, what did he do? He actually came out and defended the spokespeople from One Nation and attacked those people who had been critical of One Nation.I recall very clearly the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Jim Soorley, fiercely attacking One Nation for their policies because he too understood, as the member for Moreton has acknowledged and as I have said, our ethnic communities were being attacked and vilified on a purely racial basis. As that happened in Brisbane, and as it was occurring elsewhere in the country, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane came out and attacked One Nation. And what did he get for his efforts? The Prime Minister of this country came out and publicly attacked whom? The Lord Mayor of Brisbane. The Prime Minister of this country attacked Jim Soorley because he had criticised Pauline Hanson. That is the fact of it.Not only did we have a Prime Minister who lacked leadership and the intestinal fortitude to do something about a situation where Australian citizens were being set upon in a purely divisive and racist manner, but for reasons unknown to any of us he decided to defend her and attack those who were critical of her, of her party and of her policies. For that, he will stand condemned not just by this parliament and the electorate at the next election but also by history in this country, which will not thank him for his absence of leadership. Worse than that, he will be condemned for his acquiescence and, worse than acquiescence, the succour he gave to those outrageous policies.Even when his own Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Tim Fischer), made public statements critical of One Nation—we will give him his due because he understood this was actually having economic ramifications; as trade minister, he was being told that countries in the region and elsewhere were not intending to do business with us because of the way in which Australian politics was unfolding and the nasty side of One Nation policies—the Prime Minister of this country, such a small man, could not bring himself to join his deputy. When his Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) did the same thing, he still could not bring himself to be critical of One Nation. When his Treasurer (Mr Costello) did it, he still could not bring himself to be—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—They criticised him in the caucus.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Indeed, as my colleagues point out, as he was with the Labor Lord Mayor of Brisbane, he was critical of his senior ministers for saying such things that did not fit with the pleasure of One Nation. Throughout the last two years, this small-minded person, who unfortunately is the Prime Minister of this country at the present time, has avoided any effort to challenge.He now reaps the rewards of his own spineless activity because in Queensland he now faces a whitewash. He knows it now because he has a backbench of coalition members from Queensland knocking at the knees trying to knock his door down. Last Sunday night, they had a special get-together at the Lodge. All the Liberals from Queensland came down early so they could have drinks with the Prime Minister and he could soothe them and they could feel some comfort from explaining their worries to the Prime Minister.They backed up again on Tuesday night. They had a special dinner for the Queensland Liberals and the Prime Minister up in the dining room here at Parliament House. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the members of the House, particularly those Liberal members from Queensland, that whatever he may have said to you he still has not learnt the lesson because after you had met with him on Sunday—in fact, the day you were going to have dinner with him upstairs—he was still out there trying to do deals with One Nation. The front page headline for the Australian of that day was: `PM rules in One Nation'. The first paragraph states:John Howard raised the prospect yesterday of dealing with One Nation senators who may hold the balance of power, suggesting it would be easier for his "centre-right Government" than working with the Democrats and Greens.After everything that has happened in Queensland, we have a Prime Minister who still does not understand that the great bulk of people out there do not support this. But more important than what the great bulk of people may or may not support today is the Prime Minister's responsibilities as leader of this nation. He has abrogated those responsibilities as leader of this nation and he will pay the price for that at the next election.My good friend the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) last evening gave a wonderful singing rendition of a song that befitted the Prime Minister, Nowhere Man. Nowhere Man is the theme song that will be played as the epitaph of the Prime Minister. He has now substituted gimmicks for leadership, as we saw an announcement this week of a new national train network to go from Melbourne to the Northern Territory. As the Canberra Times pointed out:When all else fails, promise `em a railway.That is what he has done. It is a substitute for policy and leadership, and it will not work. (Time expired)16:00:005450Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—What an amazing MPI we have had from the opposition this afternoon. I have heard many MPIs. A great many of them have been on important subjects, they have been fair dinkum and they have put forward some real issues. This one has just been idle, empty rhetoric. I must say that I was very disappointed in the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), who carried on with great vigour at times and got very excited during his speech. He quoted his childhood where he grew up in the political campaign of his father, who was a very respected member of this parliament, Kim Beazley Sr. I am reminded of the quotation from Mr Beazley Sr, who said, `When I entered the Labor Party, it consisted of the cream of the working class; when I left it, it consisted of the dregs of the middle class.' That is out of the mouth of Kim Beazley Sr, and I think there is a lesson there for all.What the Leader of the Opposition said—and he said it with great gusto—is that the primary obligation of the Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), is to ensure that we have a cohesive society. He said, `We need to have a society in which every Australian feels relaxed and comfortable about being an Australian. That is the way it always was, until now.' The Leader of the Opposition is seriously suggesting that, since the member for Bennelong became the Prime Minister of this country, there has been a sea change in the feelings and attitudes of Australians. I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there has been a change. There are a great many people in Australia who are concerned and worried, but that did not start on 2 March 1996. It started in March 1983 when Bob Hawke became the Prime Minister of Australia, with Paul Keating as his Treasurer, and it continued when Paul Keating became Prime Minister. That is when society started to become a bit nervous.The Leader of the Opposition said that there is a deliberate strategy to make some Australians feel uncomfortable. Quite frankly, I would agree with him. I agree that there is a deliberate strategy to make some Australians feel uncomfortable and it is coming from the Labor Party because, ever since they have been in opposition, they have not done or said one positive thing. All they have done is whinged, whined, moaned and attacked, and all they have done continually is to talk Australia down and to encourage our fellow Australians to feel unhappy and deprived—but with no basis in fact or truth whatsoever. The reality is that, since John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia, Australia has advanced in very many ways.Before I get on to that I want to refer to something that was said by the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis), who referred to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Jim Soorley. I think the member for Brisbane should know that Lord Mayor Jim Soorley called Councillor Michael Caltabiano a `Mafia flea'.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—What a disgrace.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—I think that is disgraceful. It really is. That is the sort of racism of the Labor Party. Who defended the White Australia policy? You went out and had yourselves a shower and washed it away, but it is still there, and there is Lord Mayor Soorley still being racist at the same time.What has happened today is that we have seen the start of a racist election campaign, promoted by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Brisbane. What they have done in this MPI today is to give One Nation some credibility and some more standing. The press of Australia has given One Nation credibility and standing, but the Labor Party has done it much, much more. The reality is shown in the result of the Queensland election and in who is going to be the Premier of Queensland by tonight—that is, Beattie.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—No thanks to your lot.AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—No, thanks to you and One Nation. That is what it is. The racist election campaign started today. In the Queensland election campaign, the Labor candidates continually proclaimed that we live in a racist society. I do not believe we live in a racist society. I believe that Australians are fair minded—RH4KERRMr Kerr—You're a fool! We gave you four seats!AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—Don't be ridiculous. Go back to Tasmania. We do not live in a racist society. We live in a society where people are fair and where they give people a fair go. But we live in a society where, thanks to Labor pulling everything down, attacking everything and being negative, fear has arisen. That, I believe, is what happened in the Queensland election. It was not necessarily a vote for One Nation. It was a vote from people who were concerned about the future and whose attitude has been influenced by Labor's negativities and by the fear they have generated. During the last 2½ years, not one positive word has come out of the Labor Party.We need to understand that, in the Queensland election, people indicated that they had had a gutful of what has been happening in Australia in mainstream politics. What they said was a pox on both sides, and today's MPI is an excellent example of why people in Australia—not just in Queensland but everywhere—are sick and tired of the way Labor is performing.The subject of this MPI is the need for the Prime Minister to provide leadership. I think that John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, has provided more leadership than any Prime Minister we have had in recent times. It takes leadership to tackle the Wik decision. It takes leadership to put together the 10-point plan which will be beneficial for all Australians. Labor has walked away from it. Labor has prevented it being passed. And yet it will be for the benefit of all Australians. So we have a Prime Minister who is showing leadership, particularly in pursuing the 10-point plan.Labor says, `No, don't sell Telstra.' It said that before the last election. And yet that takes leadership, it takes guts, it takes the ability to see what is needed, it takes the ability to take the hard decisions, and yet that mob have never had the ability to take the hard decisions. All they know how to do is to spend more money, put up the debt, put up the interest rates, and put up inflation. That is all they know how to do. I am using Telstra as an example of the Prime Minister's leadership. Do you know that we have sold one-third of Telstra and, as a result of that, we have reduced the interest being paid by all Australians by $900 million a year every year forever? That will be to the benefit of my children, my grandchildren and their children. It is the same for everybody.I believe we will go ahead with selling the second lot of Telstra after the next election, because the Australian people are not stupid; they know what we have to do—we have to further reduce the debt we inherited from Labor. The whole point of a further sale of Telstra is to reduce interest being paid, to pay off Australia's Commonwealth government debt, by $2.8 billion.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—And lose $3 million in dividends?AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHL—The member for Melbourne at the table says, `What about the loss of dividend?' He does not have a clue. The dividend is nothing like that. The reality is that if we sell the second lot of Telstra we will reduce the interest paid by $2.8 billion a year, every year, forever. That is leadership from the Prime Minister of Australia, and that is the leadership the Australian Labor Party is not providing. If you go right though all of the activities of this government since we came into government in March 1996, you will see that Prime Minister Howard has continually taken the hard decisions and continually taken the right decisions to get Australia moving again, to get inflation down, to reduce interest rates, and to change a deficit into a surplus. This is what Australia needed: a Prime Minister with guts and leadership to go ahead, take the hard decisions, and get Australia back in the black and back on track.16:10:005452Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—This MPI—the need for the Prime Minister to provide leadership necessary to ensure that Australia remains a cohesive society—would be laughable if it were not such a serious matter. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is, to say the least, gutless and ineffectual. There is no doubt about that, and Australia knows that. But he is better than anyone else on the frontbench of the Liberal Party and better than anyone on the frontbench of the Labor Party who is likely to attain power, because the talent of the Labor Party is certainly being stifled.Let us look at some of the characteristics of leadership. We have Peter Reith. Before Peter Reith was in the ministry, when he was in opposition, he was one of the great champions of citizens initiated referenda—the one thing that would return power to the people of Australia, the one simple, inexpensive thing that would give the people of Australia ongoing control not only of the government but of the crazy High Court and the bureaucracy. Since he has been a minister, we have not had one peep out of Peter Reith in support of CIR. Yet I can remember the days when Peter Reith and I appeared on the same videos supporting CIR. What has happened to Mr Reith's integrity? Of course, it has been buried amongst his ministerial responsibilities.Then let us look at the performance of the member for Brand, Mr Beazley. Mr Beazley has shown an enormous lack of leadership. I give you one example from Western Australia. He has said that the Labor Party will support the state opposition led by Mr Gallop. The Labor Party in Western Australia are a joke and they will never get anywhere under Gallop's leadership—that is quite clear. But there is the would-be Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, saying, `We in the Labor Party will never support a dam on the Fitzroy River.' Any dam on the Fitzroy River is 20 years away. He is pre-empting what will happen in that 20 years, because I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that if there are 20,000 hectares—RH4KERRMr Kerr—I spoke to you, and you told me it was a nutty idea.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—The member from Tasmania is one of the great architects of Labor Party policy. And that is why they are in the trouble they are. Mr Kerr, the member for Denison, is part of the problem of the Labor Party.RH4KERRMr Kerr—You said it was a nutty idea.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—I say—and I have said on the record—that a dam right now is nonsense. Any dam decision is 20 years away. Let us have the research done. What the Labor Party are trying to do is block the research so that we will not know the facts. But if we get 20,000 hectares of cotton growing south of Broome, by means of underground water, then a dam will be inevitable, and the Labor Party will not be able to hold back on it and they will of course change their mind.Listening to the pompous, pious pontificating from the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis) is sickening. One Nation—as they admit in the authorised book—is a creation of the media. She is a media creation. And yet it is people like the member for Brisbane who continually support and feed the media so they can go on with their irresponsible behaviour.Let us look at the member for Brand with respect to native title. The Labor Party's position on native title is totally unprincipled. Under Keating's legislation, there was a prima facie case. Keating thought that native title would be extinguished by pastoral leases, and because he thought so all those frauds like Peter Yu and those other Aboriginal people signed up on the Labor Party legislation. When we got that crazy Wik decision, of course it all went back into the melting pot. But Keating had a prima facie case—the Labor Party know that. It is absolutely hypocritical for them to be opposing it.There is a crack of light now that Mr Beattie has succeeded in forming a government in Queensland. I hope Mr Beattie calls on those Queensland senators to act responsibly and follow the responsible decision of Senator Colston to put Queensland first and get this legislation through for the benefit of all Australia. If you do not, I can tell you what is going to happen: there is going to be bloodshed over this issue. There will be Aboriginal shooting Aboriginal, and the first Aboriginal blood will be on the head of the likes of the member for Brand.Let us look at Paul Keating. When we talk about the lack of leadership in the last few years, look at what Keating did to this country. He is the man who deskilled this nation, and everyone in the Labor Party caucus said, `Goody, goody.' When Keating was forced to have his sojourn on the backbench, I am told that he was taking daily lessons from Manning Clark on Australian history. Who in their right mind would go to Manning Clark? It is on the record that Manning Clark said that he was amazed at Keating's ignorance, so what you have seen is that vacuum between Keating's ears filled up with all the Manning Clark nonsense. I will make this prophecy: as events unfold and material becomes available, Manning Clark will be seen to be nothing more nor less than an agent for the Communist Party in Australia, and then we will see the Labor Party deserting him, as he deserves to be deserted for his perversion of Australian history.There is no leadership in Australian politics at the moment, and the people of Australia have to realise that. They have been delivered into their own keeping, and the people of Australia have to start making decisions themselves. There are lots of things the people of Australia can do apart from what this government does or does not do. The people of Australia should make a conscious effort to ask the likes of Coles and Woolworth's, which go around plundering this nation, why they are selling imported pork, and where the Australian produce is on their shelves.Every local government, every contractor, every mining company should look at Link Level, which is an Australian invention. It is the biggest advance in grading technology, half the price of imported equipment and it operates at four times the speed—an enormous advantage. I must give a tribute to the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan). I contacted the Minister for Defence about this and within days he had the army looking at this technology. Unfortunately, given the record of our army in preferring foreign technology, they will probably never ever do anything with it. There are lots of things that the people of Australia can do, as I have said, and they must start doing it for themselves because governments on both sides have simply let them down.This country is facing a crisis. We have the outrage of American institutions and American banks telling us that if we decide to elect One Nation then all the world will fall upon us. What hypocrisy! When the Chinese went into Tiananmen Square, what happened? There were strong words in the press in the United States: `Finance and the Western World poured into China'. All they were concerned about was stability in China, not human rights.I do not think this country will elect One Nation because, ultimately, the vote for One Nation was a vote by the people of Australia saying, `A curse on both your houses.' It was also an issue where the media had blinded this nation. It is quite clear that the media in the Queensland election were selective, capricious, ignorant and therefore dangerous. I hope the media are going to learn their lesson. But that is what happened. It is certainly nothing to do with the United States or the President of Indonesia or what we do with our internal policies. Until we get back to an economy where we have internal strength, we are going to be a passive victim to the rules and dictates of overseas finance, particularly from the United States.We have seen the manufacturing industry of this country devastated principally by the Labor Party. It was the architect of this. Under Keating we saw massive deskilling of this nation, so much so that if you want a boilermaker in Kalgoorlie you have to import one from South Africa. That is what is happening, and every one of those has been into my office seeking permanent residence. Just think about the ongoing consequences of this.This sort of nonsense has to be stopped. There is no likelihood that it will be stopped by either side of politics, because the truth is there is no difference in the ultimate policies of Labor or Liberal. They are so similar; the people of Australia know they have no choice. The solution must be that this parliament must start representing people. The people of this nation know, intuitively or intellectually, this parliament does not represent them; it represents parties who in turn represent pressure groups and vested interests. Until this parliament starts to represent the people of Australia we will go on having this problem where this once great institution is held in contempt by the people of Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! The discussion has now concluded.Miscellaneous5454545410000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority:(a) establishment of an International Flag display in the Parliamentary Zone;(b) interim landscape works, Constitution Place, Parkes;(c) introduction of parking restrictions along the West Block western car park access road, proposed on behalf of P&O Facilities Management; and(d) introduction of parking restrictions at East Block car park, proposed on behalf of the National Archives of Australia.Bills5454Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bill:Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998Bills5454r4245454Consideration resumed from 24 June.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 1 (after line 9), after clause 2, insert:2A Review of operation of Act(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to be undertaken as soon as possible after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act.(2) A person who undertakes such a review must give the Minister a written report of the review, including any recommendations for changes to the regulation of managed investments.(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 6 months after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Act.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (after line 32), at the end of section 601HA, add:(2) If: (a) a registration application is made as a result of a resolution passed under subparagraph 1457(1)(a)(i); and (b) the resolution included a direction under subsection 1457(1A);the compliance plan lodged with the application must provide for scheme property to be held by a person other than the responsible entity, or a person that is not related to the responsible entity, as the responsible entity's agent.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (after line 31), at the end of section 601JC, add:(2) In carrying out its functions, the compliance committee may commission independent legal, accounting or other professional advice or assistance, at the reasonable expense of the responsible entity.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (line 26), omit "for the benefit of the members", substitute "and the interests of members in the scheme property".(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (lines 28 and 29), omit "that come out of the scheme property, or that could diminish or endanger the scheme property,", substitute "that could diminish or endanger the scheme property, or that could adversely affect the interests of members,".(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 58 (after line 18), after subsection 1457(1), insert: (1A) A resolution passed under subparagraph (1)(a)(i) may direct the proposed responsible entity to lodge with the registration application a compliance plan that provides for scheme property to be held by a person other than the responsible entity, or a person that is not related to the responsible entity, as the responsible entity's agent.(7) Schedule 2, page 87 (after line 13), after item 120, insert:120A At the end of subsection 784(2)Add: ; and (e) if the licence applied for is a licence to operate a managed investment scheme or schemes, the applicant meets the requirements of subsection (2A), and any additional requirements determined by the ASIC under subsection (2B).120B After subsection 784(2)Insert:(2A) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(e), the ASIC must be satisfied that the value of the net tangible assets of the applicant is and will be maintained at a minimum of $50,000 or, where the value of all scheme property is greater than $10,000,000, an amount equal to 0.5% of those assets shown in the latest accounts of the scheme lodged with the ASIC, up to a maximum of $5,000,000.(2B) The ASIC may determine additional requirements for the purpose of paragraph (2)(e), including, but not limited to, a requirement that scheme property be held by an agent in particular circumstances.(2C) In this section: net tangible assets means the total tangible assets of the applicant, including any guarantee approved by the ASIC, less any adjusted liabilities as shown in the latest accounts of the scheme lodged with the ASIC.(2D) The ASIC, or a member of the ASIC, may exempt an applicant from the requirements of subsection (2A). This power may not be delegated. The ASIC is to provide details of any exemptions granted under this section in its annual report.(8) Schedule 2, page 90 (after line 27), after item 138, insert:138A After subsection 1043(1)Insert:(1A) Where a corporation offers interests in a registered scheme, the corporation must, in all prospectuses and other representations relating to the interests in the scheme, direct that all cheques and other payment orders in respect of applications for interests be drawn in favour of the responsible entity, or custodian or trustee where there is one, on account of the particular scheme and the applicant.16:22:005455Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That amendments 1 to 6 and 8 be agreed to.The government is pleased that the Senate has passed the Managed Investments Bill 1997 with only relatively minor amendment. Let me say at the outset that, while the government does not necessarily agree with each of the amendments that have been made to the bill, it does not intend to oppose the amendments, subject to one minor change which I shall mention shortly. The government is keen to see the early passage and implementation of the reforms contained in the bill in order to deliver the bill's more efficient and improved investor protection regime to the investing community as soon as possible.One of the amendments made to the bill, item 1, imposes a statutory requirement for the bill to be reviewed three years after commencement. The government had already signalled its intention to review the bill after two years and would, in any event, keep the new regime under review. Accordingly, the government has no difficulty with this amendment.Two further amendments, items 2 and 6, taken together, will facilitate members of existing schemes to require a separate custodian to hold the scheme's assets on conversion to the responsible entity structure. Where after the first 12 months of the two-year transition period provided by the bill neither the existing trustee nor management company retire, the transitional provisions require that a meeting of members of the scheme be held to allow members to vote on the scheme's future. The choice is open to members that such a meeting will be either to wind up the scheme or to appoint a party to become the responsible entity.The amendments made in the Senate make it clear that if members decide to appoint a responsible entity, that is, the members decide that the scheme should continue under the new regime provided for by the bill, the members may also resolve to direct the proposed responsible entity that it should put in place arrangements for the future operation of the scheme that include an agent or a custodian to hold the scheme property separately from the responsible entity itself. Where such a direction is given, as contemplated by the amendment at item 6, the responsible entity will be required, under the amendment at item 2, to include such arrangements in its compliance plan, which is lodged with the ASC when their responsible entity applies to register the scheme. The government voted for this amendment in the Senate.A further amendment, item No. 3, specifies that a compliance committee may seek independent professional advice to assist it in carrying out its functions at the reasonable expense of the responsible entity. The government believes that the amendment was unnecessary since there was nothing in the bill to prevent compliance committees from commissioning such advice. However, the government is not willing to jeopardise passage of the bill by opposing this amendment.Two further amendments, items 4 and 5, make minor changes to the wording of the provision which provides a modified objects clause for the Corporations Law related party provisions which are adapted by the bill to be applicable to managed investment schemes.The final amendment at this point is item No. 8 and this inserts a new provision in the law's fundraising provisions. It will require that in a prospectus for a managed investment scheme there be a statement that all cheques in respect of applications for interest in the scheme should be drawn in favour of the responsible entity on the account of the particular scheme and the applicant. This amendment replicates the effect of and is in almost the same terms as existing Corporations Law Regulation No. 7.12.15(6)BB. The government had been preparing draft regulations amending the corporations regulations to take account of the change from prescribed interest to managed investments schemes. One of the amending regulations was to continue the obligation currently imposed by regulation 7.12.15(6)BB. Accordingly, the government did not believe that the amendment was necessary. I therefore support the Senate amendments Nos 1 to 6 and 8.16:27:005456Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—The issues involved in the Managed Investments Bill represent a quite difficult call, I think, for those of us involved in public policy formulation. As a member of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, I had the opportunity to hear a lot of the evidence concerning the issues at stake in this legislation. Indeed, a number of us on both sides of the House and in the minor parties were lobbied quite heavily by both sides concerning the issues involved here, which have about them something of the character of a demarcation dispute, let me say, between funds managers and trustees as to how managed investments should best be protected from the point of view of investors.So when we had people saying, `Yes, these changes will improve investor protection,' and other people just as passionately and vehemently saying, `No, these changes won't improve investor protection, they will diminish it,' it is never easy to be entirely satisfied that the position that we have arrived at is the ideal one. Certainly it is our intention, as the Labor opposition and prospective Labor government, to be looking at this issue closely as it unfolds, with one eye on the fact that the operation of the act will be reviewed after three years.I do express some disquiet on two points. On the issue of budget funding for the ASC, it is clear that the ASC needs to play a critical role in ensuring that investor protection concerning managed investments is there. We are a bit concerned about the allocations given to the ASC in this year's budget in relation to this matter. We have sought and received some assurances from the government concerning the future of funding for the ASC in relation to the supervision of managed investments, and we certainly intend to hold the government to those assurances.I also note that even in the last few days several members of the Wallis committee— Ian Harper, Linda Nicholls and Jeffrey Carmichael—wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) expressing some concern about the Managed Investments Bill and whether it was appropriate in terms of prudential requirements. That did have some significance because the government had been insisting that the Wallis committee and its members had given this legislation a tick. Nevertheless, we have supported the single responsible entity concept. We have taken the view that the collapse of Estate Mortgage and Aust-Wide did reveal problems in this area and a need for reform. We have fundamentally supported what the government has been doing.In the Senate, we moved a number of amendments designed to improve investor protection. Those amendments were accepted by the other parties and, ultimately, the government. I will briefly recap on them because I think they are important. We are hopeful that they will help the most important area of investor protection. First, we are talking about a review of the operation of the act after three years. If there do turn out to be problems or shortcomings in what is being proposed here, this will give us the opportunity to identify and rectify those problems. Second, there should be the opportunity for members of existing managed investment schemes to direct the chosen single responsible entity to hold the scheme assets in a particular way with a custodian related or unrelated; that is, if after 12 months neither the fund manager nor the trustee retires from the field, as it were, there will be an opportunity for members to direct the matter.Third, we have a requirement that, in determining whether to issue a licence to a single responsible entity, the ASC must be satisfied that the value of the net tangible assets of the applicant is and will be maintained at a minimum of $50,000 and a maximum of $5 million. Where the value of all scheme property is greater than $10 million, the single responsible entity should have net tangible assets of an amount equal to 0.5 per cent of those assets up to a maximum of $5 million. The applicant for an SRE licence can use the services of a guarantor approved by the ASC to meet the net tangible assets test. We think that capital adequacy requirement is important, and we are pleased that the government has accepted it.We moved another amendment that required an SRE to declare the custodial arrangements of the scheme's assets clearly in the fund prospectus. We withdrew that amendment after we received an assurance from the government that this requirement would be included in the regulations which are to accompany the act. (Extension of time granted) It is also worth mentioning that we, and ultimately the government, supported amendments from the Australian Democrats, one of which changes the words `benefits of members' to `interests of members' regarding the scheme property. An amendment was put forward by the Western Australian Greens which allows members of a single responsible entity's compliance committee to seek independent outside advice on issues which might affect the operation of the compliance committee at the expense of the single responsible entity. That amendment was accepted by both Labor and the government.We hope with these amendments that investor protection is enhanced. We hope that as a result of the bill itself investor protection, which ought to be the ultimate objective of us all, is enhanced. As I indicated before, we are supporting the bill. We will be watching and monitoring its operation closely to ensure that it achieves the objectives for which it has been designed.Question resolved in the affirmative.16:34:005457Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That Senate amendment No. 7 be amended as follows:(1) Proposed subsection (2C) to be inserted by proposed item 120B, omit "the scheme", substitute "the applicant".I want to make a few comments in relation to the amendment to item No. 7. This inserts a new provision in part 7.3 of the Corporations Law relating to the licensing of participants in the securities industry. The bill already contains a provision stating that a responsible entity must be a public company with a dealers licence issued by the ASC under part 7.3 authorising it to operate a managed investment scheme. The amendment inserts a capital adequacy test to be applied by the ASIC in relation to applications for such licences. It allows the ASIC to determine any additional requirements including, but not limited to, a requirement that the scheme property be held by an agent of the licence holder in particular circumstances.The government has no objection to providing that the ASIC may specify additional requirements and supports its inclusion in the bill. However, the government has been concerned about inserting a capital adequacy test with specified thresholds in the law since it considers that the approach may deprive the ASIC of much needed flexibility and discretion in administering the law.The government believes that a better approach would be for the law to recognise that the ASIC may apply a capital adequacy test but leave the content of such a test to be determined by the ASIC by way of guidelines for the industry. Nonetheless, the amendment does contain a provision that would allow the ASIC to waive the capital adequacy test, but any such exemptions will need to be detailed in the ASIC's annual report.The government is still not convinced that the approach in the amendment is the best approach. However, once again, in the interests of delivering the improved regulatory regime contained in the bill as soon as possible, the government has decided to agree to the amendment in its current terms subject to a minor change to rectify a drafting defect. The defect is in the definition of `net tangible assets' appearing in new subsection 784(2C). The definition states, in effect, that `net tangible assets' means the total tangible assets of the applicant for a licence to operate a managed investments scheme less any adjusted liabilities as shown in the latest set of accounts of the scheme lodged with the ASIC.It is not the scheme's liabilities which should be relevant to determining the applicant's net tangible assets but the applicant's own liabilities. The government's reading of the provision is consistent with a draft policy statement on financial require ments for responsible entities prepared by the ASC. Accordingly, the government will not oppose the amendment in item 7 once new subsection 784(2C) is amended by substituting the word `applicant' for the word `scheme'.16:37:005458Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I did mention earlier the capital adequacy amendment. We are pleased that the government has accepted our proposal in relation to this issue, and we are supporting the amendment now moved by the government.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Miles) agreed to:That the amendment, as amended, be agreed to.Bills5458r4055458Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (lines 17 to 24), omit subsection 5.2, substitute:5.2 Appointment of new directors It is a replaceable rule (see 1.6) that shareholders may appoint directors by resolution at a general meeting.[section 224C](2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 47 (table item 2), omit the table item.(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 78 (line 21) to page 79 (line 2), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 79 (line 16), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 79 (line 18), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 81 (after line 24), after section 249C, insert:249CA Calling of meetings of members of a listed company by a director (1) A director may call a meeting of the company's members. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 84 (after line 27), after section 249H, insert:249HA Amount of notice of meetings of listed company (1) Despite section 249H, at least 28 days notice must be given of a meeting of a company's members. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 91 (lines 10 to 18), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(9) Schedule 1, item 4, page 94 (lines 27 to 30), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(10) Schedule 1, item 4, page 96 (lines 8 to 17), omit subsection (4).(11) Schedule 1, item 4, page 96 (after line 21), after section 250B, insert:250BA Proxy documents—listed companies (1) In a notice of meeting for a meeting of the members of a company, the company: (a) must specify a place and a fax number; and (b) may specify an electronic address;for the purposes of receipt of proxy appointments. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(12) Schedule 1, item 4, page 98 (lines 17 to 22), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(13) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (line 5), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(14) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (after line 14), after subsection 250J(1), insert: (1A) Before a vote is taken the chair must inform the meeting whether any proxy votes have been received and how the proxy votes are to be cast.(15) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (lines 15 to 21), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(16) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (line 16), after "result", insert ", provided that the declaration reflects the show of hands and the votes of the proxies received".(17) Schedule 1, item 4, page 99 (line 26), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(18) Schedule 1, item 4, page 100 (line 7), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(19) Schedule 1, item 4, page 100 (lines 20 to 26), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(20) Schedule 1, item 4, page 102 (line 11), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(21) Schedule 1, item 4, page 102 (line 16), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(22) Schedule 1, item 4, page 103 (lines 18 to 21), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(23) Schedule 1, item 4, page 104 (after line 4), after section 251A, insert:251AA Disclosure of proxy votes—listed companies (1) A company must record in the minutes of a meeting, in respect of each resolution in the notice of meeting, the total number of proxy votes exercisable by all proxies validly appointed and: (a) if the resolution is decided by a show of hands—the total number of proxy votes in respect of which the appointments specified that: (i) the proxy is to vote for the resolution; and (ii) the proxy is to vote against the resolution; and (iii) the proxy is to abstain on the resolution; and (iv) the proxy may vote at the proxy's discretion; and (b) if the resolution is decided on a poll—the information specified in paragraph (a) and the total number of votes cast on the poll: (i) in favour of the resolution; and (ii) against the resolution; and (iii) abstaining on the resolution. (2) A company that must notify the Exchange of a resolution passed by members at a meeting of the company must, at the same time, give the Exchange the information specified in subsection (1). (3) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (4) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(24) Schedule 1, item 4, page 114 (line 26) to page 115 (line 2), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(25) Schedule 1, item 4, page 118 (lines 4 to 7), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(26) Schedule 1, item 4, page 122 (line 20), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(27) Schedule 1, item 4, page 123 (lines 6 to 12), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(28) Schedule 1, item 4, page 123 (line 17), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(29) Schedule 1, item 4, page 123 (line 27), omit "chairman", substitute "chair".(30) Schedule 1, item 4, page 124 (lines 14 to 16), omit "chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "chair".(31) Schedule 1, item 5, page 183 (line 26), at the end of subsection (4), add: ; and (d) whether, in the directors' opinion, the financial statement and notes are in accordance with this law, including: (i) section 296 (compliance with accounting standards); and (ii) section 297 (true and fair view).(32) Schedule 1, item 5, page 185 (line 31), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; and (f) if the entity's operations are subject to any particular and significant environmental regulation under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory—details of the entity's performance in relation to environmental regulation.(33) Schedule 1, item 5, page 191 (after line 15), after section 300, insert:300A Annual directors' report—specific information to be provided by listed companies (1) The directors' report for a financial year for a company must also include: (a) discussion of broad policy for determining the nature and amount of em oluments of board members and senior executives of the company; and (b) discussion of the relationship between such policy and the company's performance; and (c) details of the nature and amount of each element of the emolument of each director and each of the 5 named officers of the company receiving the highest emolument. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(34) Schedule 1, item 5, page 207 (after line 16), after section 323D, insert:Division 8—Disclosure by listed companies of information filed overseas 323DA Listed companies to disclose information filed overseas (1) A company that discloses information to, or as required by: (a) the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States of America; or (b) the New York Stock Exchange; or (c) a prescribed securities exchange in a foreign country;must disclose that information in English to the Exchange on the next business day after doing so. (2) This section applies only to a company that is: (a) incorporated in Australia; and (b) included in an official list of the Exchange. (3) This section applies despite anything in the company's constitution.(35) Schedule 1, item 6, page 220 (line 24) to page 221 (line 2), omit section 352, substitute:352 Documents lodged with ASIC electronically (1) A document may be lodged with ASIC electronically only if: (a) ASIC and the person seeking to lodge it (either on their own behalf or as agent) have agreed, in writing, that it may be lodged electronically; or (b) ASIC has approved, in writing, the electronic lodgment of documents of that kind.The document is taken to be lodged with ASIC if it is lodged in accordance with the agreement or approval (including any requirements of the agreement or approval as to authentication). (2) Any agreement or approval must provide for a signed copy of the document to be held by the person lodging the document and for the person to make the signed copy of the document available to the ASIC if required.(36) Schedule 2, page 336 (after line 20), after item 375, insert:375A Section 1355Repeal the section, substitute:1355 Doing act without payment of feeIf a fee is payable under section 1351 for a matter involving the doing of an act by the Minister or ASIC, the Minister or ASIC may refuse to do that act until: (a) the fee is paid; or (b) if a deposit on account of the fee is required under section 1357—the deposit is paid.16:38:005461Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I would like to make the following comments about these amendments. The government is pleased that the Senate has passed the Company Law Review Bill 1997 . The bill will rewrite and reform the core company law areas of forming companies, company meetings, share capital, annual returns, deregistration of defunct companies and company names. These are all matters of concern which affect every one of Australia's one million plus companies.The bill will introduce significant efficiencies to the way corporate Australia goes about its business. The Senate has made a number of amendments to the bill. The government does not approve of these amendments. However, in view of the need to enact this legislation quickly and, possibly, that by rejecting these amendments in this House the legislation with such amendments would not secure passage in the Senate before 1 July 1998, the government will enact the legislation, including the amendments.The government would have preferred that some of the amendments made by the Senate be considered by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities before being passed into law. It believes that referral of the amendments to the parliamentary joint committee would have provided due process for the amendments and led to better outcomes. This would allow all stakeholders to have a say on the changes and create time to assess the full consequences as well as drafting details.I will turn now to the details of the amendments. One of the amendments would allow a director of a company listed on the ASX to call a general meeting of the company's shareholders. This is intended by its supporters to allow an aggrieved director to call a general meeting to air concerns about the management of the company. The government does not believe that it will achieve this objective. Aggrieved directors will continue to be concerned about defamation. It will be necessary to consider whether the meeting can be frustrated because it has not been called for a proper purpose. These are examples of the issues that could have been resolved had the amendment been subject to a proper process by referral to the parliamentary joint committee. Further, under the bill, 100 shareholders can call a meeting, providing a fair mechanism for an aggrieved director.A number of amendments have been made in relation to the corporate governance arrangements for listed companies. Significantly, these amendments will only apply to companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The question has to be asked whether these amendments, in singling out the Australian Stock Exchange, will place the Australian Stock Exchange at a competitive disadvantage in relation to other stock exchanges, both in Australia and overseas.The amendments also will require the Australian Stock Exchange listed companies to give 28 days notice of a general meeting. These companies will also be required to disclose details of proxy voting at general meetings and to provide, on the notice of a shareholders' meeting, a fax number to which proxies may be sent. These are machinery matters which the government considers would be better addressed through best practice in corporate governance instead of through prescriptive black-letter law as proposed by these amendments.The amendments will require the Australian Stock Exchange listed companies to make disclosures about the remuneration paid to their directors. The government considers that whether the companies should be required to disclose the remuneration paid to their directors is a significant policy question. It would have preferred that the issue be considered by the parliamentary joint committee before legislating in this way.Another amendment will require a company that discloses information to the US Securities Exchange Commission or the New York Stock Exchange to lodge a copy of that information with the ASX. The government considers that whether companies should be required to lodge information with the ASX should be a matter for this parliament and not the SEC of the New York Stock Exchange.Another amendment will require all companies, apart from small proprietary companies, to include in their annual report to their shareholders details of the company's compliance with environmental legislation. Again, this is a matter which should have been considered in the context of a full public consultation process.Another amendment will require companies to indicate in their annual report to shareholders whether, in the directors' opinion, the financial statements and notes are in accordance with the law. The amendments will also omit from the bill a provision that would have allowed companies to require shareholders lodging proxies by fax or email to produce the proxy at the general meeting.The amendments also have the effect of inserting two new replaceable rules into the law. (Extension of time granted) The first will oblige the chair of a general meeting to indicate, before a vote is taken, whether any proxy votes have been received and how they are to be cast. The second provides that, at a general meeting, the chairman does not have to indicate the number of votes cast for and against a resolution decided on a show of hands if the result declared by the chairman reflects the show of hands and the votes of the proxies received. Two other amendments will amend the small business guide and the list of replaceable rules by omitting a reference to a replaceable rule that would allow the directors of a company to appoint another director. Significantly, the amendment did not omit the replaceable rule itself.The government is not convinced about the merits of these amendments. It considers some of them should have been referred to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities instead of being legislated for in this way. Nevertheless, the government will agree to them in the interests of securing passage for the bill.There is one amendment that does warrant special mention. In March 1997 the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) indicated in his More Time for Business statement that the government would be establishing by July 1998 a single business entry point for access to government. The entry point will allow business to use the Internet to register a company with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC, and also to register with the Australian Taxation Office in relation to tax file numbers, group employer and the prescribed payments system. In making this amendment, the government demonstrates its commitment to making government services more accessible to small business and rural and regional Australia.I would like to emphasise the progress which is being made by this government in the area of information technology. It is a major step forward. We are making great progress in this area and, of course, Australia is at the forefront of some of these practices. It is something of which this government is very proud in regard to information technology.Finally, the government believes that measures that have not been the subject of full public consultation should be inquired into and reported on by the parliamentary joint committee and that the government would reserve the right to review public submissions on these amendments with a view to achieving a sounder policy outcome through the CLERP legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.16:46:005463Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As the government has indicated, the most significant amendment we have here is one which is going to establish a requirement for annual directors' reports to disclose the remuneration packages of all directors and the top five company office holders, as well as the relationship between remuneration and a company's performance. This will provide increased transparency for shareholders of companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.We are delighted that the government has agreed to our amendment, which will provide for proper public disclosure of company directors' remuneration. We cannot, however, understand why the government has not supported this proposition all along and, indeed, still stands up here and says, `We don't like these amendments. In our heart of hearts we don't support them. We're going to go along with them because the Senate is making us, but we don't support the idea that these chief executive officers and directors ought to be required to disclose their remuneration.'Frankly, this discloses that the Liberal Party remains far too close to the top end of town. It is that sort of attitude which is responsible in part for the collapse in the Liberal vote recently, as we have seen with the change of government in Queensland. We have seen it in the loss of the Liberal primary vote as measured by opinion polls. The Liberal Party is too close to the top end of town. It is a matter of basic commonsense that knowledge of directors' salaries and those of the top five company office holders ought to be available to the shareholders in the company. Indeed, with the bill that the government presented to us originally, you would have had a situation where you had an ASX listing rule which required a director's options to be approved by shareholders, but the shareholders would not have been able to vote to approve an option without knowing what the rest of the director's salary package was. Being asked to vote as to whether or not an option was an appropriate thing or not without knowing what the rest of the salary package was would have made a nonsense of it.Recently I had the argument put to me that the problem with disclosing these executive salaries is that it would lead to problems of poaching and headhunting and so on. I did point out by way of response that for the rest of us—members of parliament and many other people—our salaries are a matter of public record. We do not have all that great a problem with headhunting and poaching in other places where these salaries are disclosed. It is our belief that chief executive officers and directors should not be in a different situation and that the shareholders are entitled to know the salaries being paid to these people. I must say I find it extraordinary the government is accepting with so little goodwill the amendment that we have moved in this area.The other point about the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) which mystified me was this idea that the matter has not been considered by the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities. I am a member of that committee and I know that the Company Law Review Bill 1997 was referred to us and, indeed, we provided a report on it in March of this year. So the matters that were in the Company Law Review Bill, including that issue of directors' salaries, on which we received some very interesting evidence in support of the position which Labor has taken on this, was considered by the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities. So I am mystified by the concerns that the parliamentary secretary is expressing on that front.There were other amendments which the government has accepted. They include increasing the minimum notice period which company directors must give for members' meetings from 21 to 28 days. We have moved amendments improving the transparency and the use of proxy votes at member meetings, and we have moved amendments requiring companies that disclose information on foreign stock exchanges to also do so on the ASX. We believe those amendments are going to improve the Company Law Review Bill. We have supported the bill from the outset and, on that basis, we are happy that the government has accepted the Senate's amendments and will be supporting that procedure here.16:50:005464Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I would like to respond very briefly. The principle of disclosure we do accept. We wanted it to be done in a reasonable sort of way and looked into properly. As to the comments made in regard to the Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities looking into these areas, sure, there were some things brought to that committee, but they were not the terms of reference, and we do not believe that was looked into in any detail at all.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5464r5075464Debate resumed.16:52:005464Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I am pleased to make a short contribution to the debate on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . Most of my objections were outlined by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham) in his very wide-ranging and worthwhile contribution to this debate earlier today. I support his comments wholeheartedly, and I do not intend to repeat them now. However, I do want to say—and I say this sincerely, and I firmly believe it—that this is wrong legislation and Australia does not need it at this time.At a time when we should be sending a strong message of support for human rights, what sort of message are we sending, not only internally, not only to various groups in our community but, even more importantly, internationally? It is no understatement to say that I am outraged that this legislation is yet another example of how the Howard government treats the human rights of ordinary Australians, and of its total disregard for the human rights of Australians.This government has always detested the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. You only have to read the statements and listen to the comments made by the coalition about this body before it came to government. My colleagues and I were not surprised when, very early in this government's term of office, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was on the hit list for destruction. This government does not believe that people should have the right to access justice or have the opportunity to hold their government accountable.It is always a challenge for governments to deal with human rights, and it is an even greater challenge when governments permit their decisions to be challenged by ordinary people. It is not always easy, it is often embarrassing, but it is always essential. I have often said that a country is judged on how it treats its minorities and how it deals with human rights issues. Once more in Australia, we are sending the wrong message to the rest of the world about our concern and respect for human rights.If people do not believe that, they should go overseas and talk to people there about what is going on in Australia. Yesterday, I had a call from a friend in Bangkok and, after we discussed some business, he asked me about the situation in terms of race and human rights in Australia today. When you go overseas, as you and many members would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the first thing people overseas now challenge you on is race—as they used to do in the days of the White Australia policy and many other things, when it was so embarrassing. We are going back to those days. We can no longer hold our heads up with pride when we go overseas because of what we are achieving in Australia in the human rights field. When we go overseas now, we have to spend our time explaining to people what is going on in Australia.This government wants to gut the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It has the numbers in this place to do so. It is doing so through cuts to this body. The government reduced funding for the commission from $21.6 million in the 1995-96 financial year to $20.5 million in the 1996-97 year. It then went down to $18.2 million in the next financial year, and $12.3 million is to be provided in the 1998-99 financial year. After that, it will only be $10 million.Members on the other side of the House will argue that nothing will change and that this is only administrative. They will say, `We have only changed the name of the commission. Instead of having five commissioners, we are now going to have three deputy presidents,' and so on. Do not believe it. The government is out to destroy it and, unfortunately, while it stays in power, it will do it. It is nothing short of an absolute disgrace.At a time when the human rights of all Australians are being challenged as never before, when we are already seeing increasing racial vilification, this government is determined to cut funding to the one body which guarantees human rights in this country. Those opposite have been coming in here during the past week wringing their hands and making pious statements about the impact of Hanson. Even ministers have been moved to comment. There have been pages and pages of newsprint about the racial impact. Yet this government, which pretends to be concerned about what the Hansonites are doing to the fabric of our society, sees absolutely nothing wrong with promoting and voting for this legislation. It is wrong legislation, and it will continue to be wrong legislation.As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I represent one of the most diverse multicultural electorates in Australia. I heard what the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis) said in the debate earlier today. I endorse those comments, as many people on all sides of the House would. The people of Port Kembla and other parts of the Illawarra have told me over the last week about what happens when their kids are going to school and the names they are being called. This will continue.It has been a battle to get racial tolerance in this country. But we have been a very racially tolerant country. The diversity of people who come to this country always amazes me. People come from over 100 different backgrounds to make their home in my area of the Illawarra. They live in harmony. There are little outbursts every so often, but in the main this has been a very racially tolerant country and everyone has worked towards that. That attitude is now going.People have let a terrible genie out of the bottle. Those who have failed to challenge it have much to answer for. Those who continue to play footsies with racists and with racist policies in this country and the people who are promoting racist policies and divisiveness, have much to answer for. We are not talking about that much overused term `political correctness'. Personally, I do not know what it means, but I hear it thrown about all the time.We are talking about vilification, racism and hatred which is being generated in our community, and we are building up a terrible legacy there. Those who are playing footsies with racist parties and racist policies in this parliament will have much to answer for for many years to come. The honourable member for Brisbane summed it up so well today when he said that history will judge these people, and history will judge them very, very harshly.Already not only have there been redundancies in the commission but also many staff have lost their jobs. The commission has been curtailed and forced to abandon much of its ongoing inquiry work. This was a deliberate policy of those opposite. They did not want the commission doing inquiries or anything like that because they were finding it embarrassing. This government, as I have said before, has always been opposed to the commission and is determined to see it become so starved of funds, so depleted in staff, that the commission cannot carry out its functions. Contrast this with what Labor promised. We made access to justice a priority and, indeed, will do so again when we once more occupy the treasury bench.This wide-ranging human rights and anti-discrimination regime has been developing over two decades and represents a legislative attempt to ensure that the democratic aspirations of equality for all are substantially realised. The reach of Australia's human rights laws has been significantly influenced by the United Nations codification of human rights norms. The institutional mechanisms of handling human rights and discrimination complaints have incrementally broadened as a way of securing an effective legal framework to respond to this increasing range of actionable human rights issues. That is what frightens those on the other side. They can see that people are getting access to these forces. That is what is frightening them. That is why they hated and condemned the commission before they came to power. When they came to power one of the first things they did was try to gut the commission.Of course this government shares with One Nation a hatred of human rights legislation. They see something sinister in people having democratic rights and being able to exercise them. Of course they will not come out and say that they want it destroyed so they kill the commission by constant cuts to funding. When those opposite start talking about the impact of the Hansonites, we will ask: if you are concerned about the impact of the Hansonites, how did you vote on this and other legislation dealing with human rights?It is interesting to look, as I did today, at the voting record of the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). Since she was elected here there have been, as Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl reminded us yesterday when he called the 500th division, over 500 divisions in this chamber, yet she has voted in only 106 of them. But the important thing is: how did she vote in the 106 divisions? For the vast majority of them, almost 100, she voted with the government.The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was—and I say `was'—internationally admired. Countries such as South Africa used it as a model in establishing their own human rights bodies but, unfortunately, no more. In one of the most despicable acts of the government, not only despicable but also deceitful, the government is determined to destroy this commission.The bill is undemocratic and, as has been said by my parliamentary colleague in the other place Senator Bolkus, it is truly unAustralian. This parliament is being asked to pass legislation, to vote on legislation, that is truly unAustralian. It just shows how far this government will go to appease the Hansonites in the country. That is what they are actually doing, and people should make no mistake about it. This is a One Nation agenda with their crazy theories about treaties and international agreements.You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I and all members of the parliament know, that we get crazies coming into our offices or ringing us up with their conspiracy theories. We all get them; I know that. They talk about how the human rights commission are agents from overseas powers and about how our sovereignty is being abrogated. As I say, these crazy theories are being supported by very strange alliances. This legislation that we are being asked to vote on is supporting that. The one body that was out there as a beacon and as a guardian to give us our protection is being gutted by this uncaring government. This government is supporting the Hansonites, and those opposite should be ashamed. I repeat: those opposite should be ashamed to vote on it. This legislation is unworthy of this House and should be opposed.17:06:005466Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The question of human rights in this country is one that all of us would, I think, subscribe to a similar view on. Sadly, there are differences now appearing in the implementation of policies in respect of key issues on human rights. We have seen that in the debate on immigration. We have seen that in the way in which Australians, particularly from non-English speaking backgrounds, are now being treated in our communities. We have seen that in the way in which some of the debates in respect of indigenous Australians have been conducted.Sadly, quite unfounded comments about land rights in backyards as a result of the Wik High Court decision have clearly caused fear in some parts of the community. One of the great ironies is that the extent to which land claims on backyards—of course, they cannot impact on backyards at all—have been promoted and endorsed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has now backfired on the government.What they have done, unfortunately for Australia, is to frighten a lot of Australians who have believed their false rhetoric. Having believed their false rhetoric, they have looked at the government's policies and do not believe they address it. One of the reasons that the One Nation Party got so many votes in Queensland is that the government, through its own fear campaigns, drove many of its traditional supporters away from it to the One Nation camp.There is a lesson to be learnt from that: human rights are not issues that should be compromised. They should not be issues, in a civilised society such as ours, about which the major parties are in disagreement. It is a matter of concern to many people, I am sure, on both sides of the House, that that is the case at the moment. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I was not intending to enter the debate, it is not my intention to use the remainder of my time. I will gladly defer to my colleague.17:08:005467Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—The Labor Party is again pleased to assist the government in cleaning up their mess. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is so important that they could not even get speakers on their side of the House who are scheduled to speak to actually turn up to speak on the bill.I regard the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill that is before us today as another example of this government's fetish to undermine the security of ordinary Australians in their workplaces, suburbs, streets and homes. Australia has been a world leader in the creation of administrative tribunals which have provided, I suggest, quick, cheap, but quality defences of the basic rights of all Australians. I think that is exceptionally important, especially in this day and age. We have had a suggestion from some quarters of the political debate, such as those who associate themselves with One Nation, that we ought not be concerned with tribunals and appeal processes, such as those going to human rights in this great nation.Since coming to government, the Howard coalition has been busy rolling back these world-beating standards. Our world-beating standards are processes that we as Australians ought to be exceptionally proud of. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is just one more example of the rolling back of these basic rights, unfortunately. In that context, the government stands condemned yet again.I rise this afternoon to plead our position, not just from the point of view of human rights with regard to the rights of immigrants, but also, as the shadow minister for employment, I am particularly concerned about the implications of this piece of legislation for working people and the unemployed who are concerned about discriminatory practices. I can assure the House that they are vitally concerned about discriminatory practices, especially at a time when they are confronting chaos with respect to delivery of employment services.Despite what the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) led the House to believe in question time today, the employment network is in utter chaos. Unemployed people are denied access to a free employment service. Throughout the suburbs and regions of Australia, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, where we previously had quality services in operation, those services have been withdrawn.It is no wonder, unfortunately, that good Australians saw fit, at the recent Queensland election, to vote for a party that does not have solutions. One of the reasons they voted for a party that does not have solutions is that this government, the Howard government, actually withdrew services that were quality services, which assisted those people at a time of need.I suggest that the proposed changes in this bill represent a further nail in the coffin of Australians who are crying out for assistance at the moment. It is about time that this government confronted the fact that the way to turn back One Nation is to accept that there is a role for government in Australia; to accept that there is a role for government to intervene and to assist—to assist the disadvantaged, to assist those who feel a sense of lack of security in their lives at the moment and, more importantly, to assist families, and the suburbs and regions that they live in.I am also worried about the fact that this government has, between 1997 and 1999, cut the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission from $19.3 million to $12.3 million. That effectively represents, over a two-year period, as the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis) reminds me, a decrease of over 36 per cent. Yes, they might have a surplus to use in an election context, but it is about time that they confronted the fact that the so-called surplus, built on the back of Australia's disadvantaged, is creating the environment in which those associated with One Nation can rear their ugly head in Australia. That is what has occurred—services have been withdrawn, with the end result that the ugly head of One Nation is rearing not only in Australia but, unfortunately, internationally and, by doing so, is doing us as a great nation damage on the human rights front.The cuts to discrimination standards represented by this mean piece of legislation and the cuts to funding of the human rights commission will obviously have an impact on the general efficiency and authority of the commission. My own view is that, at a time of need, we ought to be strengthening the human rights commission, not weakening it and undermining its capacity to do its job. That would represent a clear, black and white statement that we are going to take on One Nation supporters, stand up for what is fair and decent in Australia, properly resource the human rights commission and make sure that, at a time of need, Australians are looked after when they want to take their complaints to an independent and efficient organisation.It would seem that, if the commission's authority is reduced in these ways, logically, its ability to properly respond to workplace discrimination issues or discrimination against the unemployed will also be significantly reduced. This is not about political correctness, as the Howard government would have you believe. This is about discrimination at work; it is about discrimination against workers with a disability; it is about discrimination against workers based on race; it is about discrimination against women; it is about discrimination against workers based on age, such as the growing and major problem in Australia at the moment about mature age unemployment. My friends, it is not about political correctness; it is about ordinary working Australians and the fact that, when they have a problem, they have a capacity to take a complaint and to have it heard and determined based on merit by a strong, independent organisation.I would suggest that, by promoting this legislation, the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) will join the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs as one of the chief promoters of insecurity for workers, the unemployed and their families. I do not say that lightly. The real answer to One Nation is about security and workers' lives; it is not about reducing their sense of security, as embodied in the industrial relations system and the award system. It is not about attacking the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is not about sacking workers in the dead of night. It is about making sure that there are institutions in place that are defended and supported by all people who have a sense of decency in Australia. Australians are sick and tired of governments who promote insecurity in their lives. That is what the Howard government has been responsible for in the short period it has been in government. It has been responsible for worsening the sense of insecurity that exists in people's lives. Australians rightly believe that governments have a role in defending the institutions which deliver security and certainty in their lives, not running away and hiding from their responsibilities. Australians quite rightly believe that governments have a role in providing a helping hand to deliver security and certainty in their lives. Politicians who tear down these institutions which deliver certainty and security will be rejected at the next federal election in the same way they were rejected at the recent Queensland election.Let me turn for a moment to the issue of workers with a disability and the effect of these so-called reforms in Australia's disability community. I have a particular attachment to these types of workers. I am pleased to say that I was intimately involved in the open employment model, the first and only piece of industrial regulation that ever went before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as a joint application by employers and unions with the support of the national government. A hell of a lot of work went into developing that open employment model which is about ensuring once and for all that we secure the right of workers with a disability to take their rightful place in all workplaces side by side with able workers.At both my former union, the Miscellaneous Workers Union, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions I spent many hours, days, months and years trying to deliver dignity in the workplace for workers with a disability. I know it is not an easy fight to deliver dignity to workers with a disability in the face of some of the barriers that they have confronted in the employment situation in the past. There are barriers not only as to their capacity to perform work but also going to the many different prejudices to get decent jobs with decent pay.The historic supported employment award I referred to that was won for workers with a disability in 1991 did not come without a struggle. The breakthrough was with the Flagstaff Group. All involved, including the parents, agreed it was an important milestone in the promotion of the rights of Australians with disabilities. But I am afraid that the changes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have a negative impact on the disabled despite government claims to the contrary.The Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Sidoti, who is now the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner as well, confirmed in evidence to a Senate estimates committee that the services provided by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner would be amongst those to be affected by the cuts. Half the staff who worked in the disability discrimination area have already been sacked because of the government's cuts to the commission. They are just one section of the many thousands of Australian public servants who have been sacked. There have been sackings in not only areas such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but also regional Australia. Unfortunately, this has led to a sense of insecurity and lack of stability that operates in regional Australia at the moment in the current political environment.The new structure in the commission for deputy presidents to be responsible for two areas will mean that the specific representatives for people with a disability will disappear. My own view is that the form of operation that currently exists represents a very clear and proper statement about the importance and significance of these areas that are currently under attack. Some may be discouraged from lodging complaints because of these changes to a deputy president with responsibility for both human rights and disability discrimination. They may also, with some justification, be concerned that the area of human rights is by itself so huge that disability issues will be pushed to the side. I hope not.The government's continuing denials that the disabled will be worse off because of these changes is hurtful and deceitful. That is what it is—hurtful and deceitful. They ought to hang their heads in shame because of these changes. The community should roundly condemn the government for attacking the rights of some of the most disadvantaged in our community—proud Australians who expect decent governments not only to operate to assist them and their families but also to make a major statement both within Australia and internationally that we care about all sections of the Australian community.Let me now turn to the legislation itself. The bill implements the government's so-called foreshadowed reforms to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In particular, the bill renames the commission as the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. It restructures the commission to replace the specialist commissioners with a president and three deputy presidents. It allegedly, if you believe the government, refocuses the objectives of the commission to make education, dissemination of information on human rights and assistance to business and the general community the focus of the commission's functions.The legislation requires the commission to seek the leave of the Attorney-General before engaging in litigation. It removes the advisory committees to the commission. It also prohibits the president from delegating the complaint handling function to the more specialist deputy commissioners. That is interesting when you consider some of the legislative changes on the immigration front at the moment giving senior officers more powers to intervene and assist.The legislation removes the power of the commission to recommend damages. It removes the barrier to appointing a person as a member of the commission who is over 65 years of age. It abolishes the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. I suppose they think there are votes in that. After all, as has become part and parcel of this government, it is about belting the less privileged in the Australian community. Votes, votes, votes—that is all that drives this government, to be seen to be associated with prejudice and undermining the disadvantaged in the community. Finally, it abolishes the position of the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Community Relations Council and establishes the new separate office of the Privacy Commissioner.Despite the government's claim that the new structure will make the commission more efficient, the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that it has no financial impact. Indeed, as the most recent round of estimates hearings indicates, the government still does not have any idea of how much it will cost to establish the new separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner.The vast majority of these amendments implement an entirely new structure for the commission. In doing so, they remove the position of the specialist commissioners whose expertise is vital in the determination and investigation of human rights matters. They also reduce the flexibility of the commission to engage in the complaint handling function.It follows from my comments that the Labor opposition strongly opposes these amendments to the human rights legislation. They are shown for what they are: yet another attack on the disadvantaged in the community, driven by push polling aimed at seeking to achieve a higher vote in the next federal election based on prejudice and attacking the disadvantaged in the community. All I can say is that the coalition got their just desserts in the recent Queensland election. It is about time they stood up for a sense of decency rather than sought to determine policy on push polling and attacking the less privileged in the Australian community.17:25:005470Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This is the second of two related bills affecting the operation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The first of these bills, now renamed the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, aims to circumvent the problems arising from the High Court decision in Brandy v. Bell by repealing the commission's determinative powers and providing that complaints that are not resolved by conciliation can be dealt with directly by the Federal Court.As I said in my speech in the second reading debate on that bill, I support its basic intent but regard its detailed provisions as flawed. To address the shortcomings of that bill, Labor's minority report to the Senate committee which considered the bill made a number of recommendations which were aimed at the following: minimising the cost and complexity of Federal Court proceedings in discrimination matters; ensuring that conciliation powers remain vested in specialist commissioners, contrary to the provisions of the bill; empowering specialist commissioners to commence proceedings in the Federal Court as complainant in some cases; and empowering specialist commissioners to address systemic discrimination.That bill is necessary to overcome a very serious problem and, with the appropriate amendments, it could provide a reasonable solution. The same cannot be said of the present bill. Most of its provisions have the potential to damage the effectiveness of the commission. The bill aims to replace the six specialist commissioners with three deputy presidents, each of whom would be required to deal with a broader range of issues. The government's justification for this appears to be its claim that, as the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) said in his second reading speech `the current structure of the commission is inefficient and top heavy'. We have yet to see any evidence of this assertion. There has been very justifiable criticism of the proposed abolition of the specialist commissioners.In the few minutes remaining, I want to focus my remarks today on the abolition of the position of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner. I want to underscore this point: the government is abolishing the position of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner. It is to be added to the role of the Human Rights Commissioner. In doing so, it sends one message and one message only to people with disabilities in this country: it does not regard discrimination against people with disabilities as a serious issue.From the government's point of view, it is a second order issue—second order discrimination, if you like. It does not deserve a specialist commissioner whose time and expertise is dedicated to helping people with disabilities get the equal treatment they deserve. These groups are getting the message. A letter we have received from the Physical Disability Council of Australia states:. The proposed Deputy President's role will include refugees, international agreements, aged people and children as well as people with disabilities, clearly a huge role for one person to preside over;. The Disability Discrimination Commissioner has been responsible for a complex, poorly understood area that needs undivided attention to ensure equity prevails. Expecting a Deputy President to adequately understand disability as well as other areas, is unrealistic and will seriously undermine the rights of people with disabilities in Australia. They are right, but this government's actions should come as no surprise. It has spent the last two years carving up services for people with disabilities—over $170 million of cuts to services alone. These cuts have made it harder for people with disabilities to participate in employment, training and all the other activities that are available to other Australians.The government has also slashed the human rights commission's budget from $19 million to just over $12 million over two years—a decrease of 36 per cent over just two years. The government's justification for this warrants little more than a passing response. It says that the human rights commission's growth over the last 10 years has been disproportionate to that in other areas. In other words, it believes that too much money has been spent on combating and redressing discrimination.This bill is the next step in the government's dismantling of what was a national agenda to make Australian communities more accessible to people with disabilities. The national agenda, developed by many people, aimed to provide a constructive process to engage individuals, businesses and governments in the changes that needed to be made so that people with a disability could lead better lives, so that they could make the kinds of contributions that other Australians take for granted.Debate interrupted.Adjournment547110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.547117:30:005471Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I stand in this adjournment debate to express my concern that we are fast losing Australia's proud traditions of a fair-go society, where everybody works hard at living in harmony. The last 28 months of the Howard government have seen our traditions badly sullied. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has been prepared to sell out our traditions just to garner a few extra votes which he desperately hopes will keep him living in luxury in Kirri billi. Nothing shows up the Prime Minister's attitude to our tradition more than what has happened to the much promised anti-racism campaign.Mr Miles interjecting—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I know that the anti-racism campaign does not figure high on the priority list of the member for Braddon. Do honourable members remember the promise to run the anti-racism campaign which was made during the lead-up to the last election? What did they say? It is in their policy documents of the last election. A two-year, $10 million anti-racism campaign was the promise. It was a core promise then but it soon became a non-core promise. All of a sudden, they worked out on election that they no longer needed the ethnic community. There was a new community associated with the One Nation party that they were more concerned to be associated with.This campaign was promised, I suggest to the House, to bolster our traditions of harmony, mateship and a fair go. In essence, I suppose, it was about that old concept of being good neighbours. But what has happened? Nothing. In fact, within months of coming into power, the promised $10 million was slashed in the first Howard-Costello budget to just $5 million. We have now had three budgets pass by and nothing has happened to the much promised campaign. The only evidence we have had of any activity is an ugly push-polling type phone survey which promoted the basest of ideas and fed the worst and loopiest ideas—ideas which one expects to be promoted by those who now control the One Nation mob, not by people who purport to lead this great nation of ours and who actually occupy the treasury benches of this great nation.What were some of the questions being promoted by the government's push-polling survey? Let us just have a look:Aborigines are dirty and lazy. Do you agree or disagree?Muslims have strange ways and will never be part of Australian society. Do you agree or disagree?Vietnamese are responsible for crime. Do you agree or disagree? That is the push-polling that the coalition government was associated with in recent months.While the federal government over the last 28 months have found many, many excuses not to go ahead with the $10 million anti-racism campaign, they have found plenty of reasons to spend $34 million on a last-minute advertising blitz to try to shore up their rapidly diminishing fortunes. But there has been no anti-racism campaign, the very anti-racism campaign promised—and it was then a core promise—in the lead-up to the March 1996 election. They do not think that is important.The government regard other things as important. For example, they have got $10 million to spend on a short, sharp, GST campaign. They have got $2.8 million to advertise their common youth allowance. They have got $4.5 million for the Natural Heritage Trust campaign to cover their poor environmental record. Finally, DEETYA is already planning a $4.5 million campaign on youth initiatives. There is plenty of money for them to defend coalition government initiatives but no money to stand up and be counted on One Nation.While they can spend and spend to try to turn around the diminishing fortunes, they cannot find the money for an anti-racism campaign to maintain our traditions of harmony, mateship and a fair go. Why is this so? The truth is that in 1996 they wanted the support of ethnic communities to get elected. In 1998 the Prime Minister has decided that he does not need the ethnic communities; he needs One Nation's supporters, so he has put the kybosh on the anti-racism campaign. He has got a new flag. He has used the ethnic communities and now he wants to be associated with people like Pauline Hanson. The truth about John Howard is that he craves the attention of Pauline Hanson much more than he craves the support of Australia's multicultural community. That is the nature of the Prime Minister we have got. (Time expired)547217:35:005472McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—One of my major efforts since being elected to represent the people of Griffith has been to open up more avenues for young people to find jobs. I have never supported the theory that young people are lazy, nor the theory that they do not want to work. They do want to work and they do want the chance to get a job that will give them a reasonable salary. They also want the chance to get into the work force to enable them to improve their skills and to move on to better things. This is obvious by the results of the work for the dole programs introduced into my electorate of Griffith last year.Today I am happy to report that, of 98 young people who are involved in one scheme, 50 have moved out into the work force. That is 50 young, long-term unemployed people who now have full-time jobs. This has been directly due to the work of the team at the South East Training Centre at Coorparoo—a team led by Shane Cowan, who has been with that centre for the past 13 years. For more than a decade, he and his team have been running skillshare programs and they are well versed in the needs of the young unemployed.Through the work for the dole program, they have assisted people such as 23-year-old Stewart Sandford of Coorparoo. Stewart had been out of work for 12 months when he joined the work for the dole program. Today he is employed at Wilson's, a fishing tackle distributor in Tingalpa. He does not expect this to be his permanent career path, but he is happy to be employed. `Better,' he said, `than sitting around doing nothing.' Stewart has been interested in the field of permaculture and now, from a position of security, he plans to pursue this course in his spare time.Jason is another 23 year old who joined the work for the dole project last December and is now working full time. Jason came to Brisbane from Mount Isa and was unemployed for well over a year. He is now working with the Brisbane City Council as a member of the anti-graffiti patrol team. For Jason, this is just the type of job he wanted. He told me that he had in mind to try out for a job with the city council as he wanted to work for a large organisation.I have no doubt that the reason Jason, Stewart and 48 other young people have found work since joining the work for the dole program is the efforts of Shane Cowan, Tony Wardell and the team from the South East Training Centre. They actively lobby potential employers in the area and then carefully present the right young people for these jobs. And they agree that getting long-term unemployed people out working as a team is a positive and confidence boosting step to applying for and starting a full-time job.The work for the dole team started out refurbishing the Community Arts Centre at Cannon Hill. Jason told me that he enjoyed the team spirit. `We all worked together pretty well,' he told me. `We all enjoyed the fact we were actually doing something.' And that, I believe, is the key. It reaffirms my belief that young people hate being unemployed and feel great frustration at having to deal with a system that strips them of any privacy and dignity. They feel that they are losers, for the sheer fact of living just below the poverty line.The young people in my electorate who have joined the work for the dole programs are breaking out of that vicious circle. What I want to see now is more programs, more young people joining together in work on these types of project, and more young people gaining the most important skill of all, which is confidence and pride in their own ability to be a part of a team.The young people of Australia cannot be compared with the young people of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s—or even the 1970s and 1980s. The issues which affect young people today are different from those which impacted on the lives of their parents and grandparents. The factors which remain constant are pride and confidence. I believe that that is what programs such as work for the dole can give unemployed young people today—more particularly, when programs are managed by people such as those at the South East Training Centre. I personally wish to take this opportunity to thank Shane Cowan, Tony Wardle and Lyn Robson of the South East Training Centre for their dedication and commitment to the community of Griffith.547417:40:005474Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I wish to pay tribute to my Labor predecessor in the seat of Lyons, formerly Wilmot. The Reverend Gil Duthie AM, BA, Lth, JP passed away peacefully on Saturday, 13 June. A memorial service was held in his honour at the Uniting Church in Margaret Street, Launceston, on June 18. I was pleased to see both federal and state members there, including the state Leader of the Opposition, Mr Jim Bacon. Also present was past Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. I know that the family appreciated his presence. Gil left behind his wife, Jeannette, three daughters and their families, and numerous grandchildren.The service held was a celebration of a very full and successful life. Gil was born at Nhill in Victoria in 1912, the eldest of seven children. His family was fully involved in the church, so it was not surprising that he did a theological degree at Queen's College in 1937. From there he was sent to King Island as a probationary minister, and met his wife there. He was ordained in 1941 and married Jeannette two days later.Gil's beliefs included a very strong social justice principle, and he embraced the Labor Party along with his religious beliefs. He was endorsed for the seat of Wilmot in March 1946 and, because he had to resign from his ministry at the time, he was virtually homeless while he was campaigning. He and his wife were taken in by friends, and Gil spent the next seven months roaming the highways and byways of Wilmot knocking on every door and introducing himself to the electorate. He was a complete stranger to the electorate and he built his campaign—and indeed his later work—on personal contact, meeting electors wherever they worked or lived or danced or played sport.People asked him how he thought he had gone in the last few days of that campaign. In his own words, from a note he wrote for Labor in Lyons, he said, `Well, if you believe in omens, there are three good omens. My name is first on the ballot paper. Most of the rooms I slept in in the dozens of hotels and pubs I stayed in had the number 1 on the door. And the only time I met my opponent during the campaign was in the federal members' rooms in Launceston, and he was coming out and I was going in.'Needless to say, Gil was elected comfortably against a national swing and remained in federal parliament to December 1975, a period of more than 29 years. Wilmot had been held by Labor for only 4½ years out of 44 till Gil won it, and was considered to be a Liberal stronghold. He did a magnificent job and went on to represent his electorate with enormous dedication and energy.Gil was also Opposition Whip for 17 years, which also took up a lot of his time when he was in Canberra. But he never forgot his constituents, keeping up a killing pace of visits, appointments and functions all over the electorate. Wilmot was only fractionally smaller than Lyons is now, as it did not take in the west coast. The roads were far worse and the vehicles were slower in his day, so I can really empathise with his gruelling travel schedule.When his reign finally came to an end with the political rout of 1975, he wrote his memoirs I had 50,000 Bosses. He was then readmitted to the Methodist ministry in March 1976—the Methodist Church becoming the Uniting Church in 1977. There he continued preaching until February this year when, after 66 years of preaching as a minister and a lay preacher, he gave his last sermon in Launceston. He said he was giving up because of health reasons.Gil was a marvellous man with a great sense of humour and a tremendously optimistic outlook. Even in his last months, when he was fighting sickness, he always had time for a chat, a word of advice or some encouragement for anybody who called. He was always a friend. I know that if I needed advice or just to discuss a political point with him he would welcome me and go through it with enthusiasm. I extend my heartfelt condolences to his family, as I am sure all members of this House do. Gil's spirit will continue to roam in Wilmot, as it has for the last 60 years. Goodbye, Gil.547517:45:005475Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise today to speak on behalf of the residents of Gilmore who are suffering because of a lack of dialysis machines in the Shoalhaven. I would like to give you a quick example of one of my local residents, who is only one of dozens of people who endure this trial and test of patience. Three days a week she gets up at 5 a.m. to drive to Wollongong. From her home in the Bay and Basin area this is at least three hours. She must then spend several hours at Wollongong Hospital hooked up to her dialysis machine, away from her home, her family and her support networks before facing the arduous three-hour drive back home. In some cases, these local residents do not get home before midnight due to the treatment or the traffic or, worse still, the waiting at the hospital. To do this every second day is enough to try even the most patient and good-natured of Australians, and yet there are many in this situation.Having had a daughter who suffered from kidney disease when she was very young and required hospitalisation, I can fully appreciate the emotional and financial burden of the dialysis patients and their families. Three or four full days out of a week on dialysis precludes any hope of a normal life for patients in terms of stable family life or employment. I am aware of one patient who was so tired and frustrated by the travelling, the pain and being forced away from his family and friends that he chose to refuse treatment and he is now no longer with us.That is why I have been heartened and humbled by the response of the local community and, in particular, the local Lions International district members who have responded to this situation so quickly. Through the hard work and dedication of some local residents, in particular Barry Macaffrey and the staff at Radio 2ST and the Lions District Governor, Mr Franz Mairinger, an appeal was launched to help raise funds for the establishment of a dialysis centre in the Shoalhaven. I was honoured to have been invited to launch the appeal recently, and I am pleased to announce that through these community efforts and contributions we have already raised $40,000 of the $285,000 required for the three dialysis machines.The Illawarra Area Health Service should also be congratulated for their commitment to provide space and staff for the machines when they are purchased, showing that once again it is the contribution of all sectors of the community to help local residents which makes a project successful. Whilst I am aware that health funding is a state government responsibility, I do believe that a three-tier of government approach has already been successful in my electorate, providing for the upgrade of main road 92 and the establishment of a university campus in West Nowra.The local community has already contributed to half of the cost of the $500,000 upgrade of the Shoalhaven District Memorial Hospital. We have a strong community spirit and a willingness to help others where we can, but we can only do so much. This week I have written to the federal Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) seeking an injection of federal funds into this very worthy project—the Lions Shoalhaven Dialysis Centre. It will provide three dialysis machines in a purpose-designed centre in our own region catering for local residents. Once built, it will enable more people to remain in our local area to get the treatment they need, supported by their family, friends and this local community.These machines are desperately required and I will do all I can to ensure that finance is available to fund this much needed facility. To see people suffering anywhere in Australia is upsetting, but more so when you have friends and constituents in your own electorate who are suffering not only from the disease but also from the lack of facilities. I care, as I know the community cares, and I urge this parliament to support this wonderful initiative of Lions International. I also applaud all those ladies who have held morning and afternoon teas and street stalls. You are tops, the community needs you and, on behalf of Gilmore, I thank you.547517:48:005475Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—The GST is one thing and one thing only: a shifting of the burden of tax away from big business and high income earners down to small businesses, families and lower income earners. The Small Business Coalition, under the sham of Australians for Fairer Tax, knows this and that is why they are throwing their support behind a $4 million top of the town advertising campaign for a GST. Does anybody here know of any small businesses with a spare $4 million to throw at an advertising campaign for a new tax? The Business Council of Australia represents the top 100 corporations of Australia, with the top paid executives of Australia.The Business Council supports a GST because it knows a GST will benefit its members and the top executives of big business, who get paid millions of dollars per year in salaries, superannuation and shares. What of the hardworking employees who receive a pittance in comparison? The proposal means that they will be slugged even more so that `Mr Chief Executive Officer' can buy another Mercedes. The simple effect of a GST is that the price of a Mercedes goes down and the price of a second-hand Holden goes up for workers.The Business Council denigrates the Australian Labor Party because we do not support a GST and attacks us for actively campaigning against a GST. As far as they are concerned, if we do not support a GST we have to be against tax reform. That is rubbish. The Business Council itself and the Small Business Coalition are out there denigrating our existing tax system but, through either gross incompetence or deliberately lying, they just cannot get their argument right.Their ad of 22 June 1998 claimed that by the year 2000 everyone on an average wage would be in the top tax bracket. They compared that to 1970, when only people on eight times the average wage were in the top tax bracket. In actual fact, that would not be until 2003-04 and does not take into account other levels of income support that were not available in 1970. Their ad, as part of their campaign of disinformation, had to be pulled off the air. It was an impressive start to their campaign for a fairer tax.Australians for a Fairer Tax would have us believe that the only solution to that objective is the introduction of a GST. If this is a tax which would add millions to the profits of members of the Small Business Coalition and their top executives at the expense of the workers on an average wage, it is, as they would put it, only coincidence. There is a deeper issue as well. The Taxation Commissioner, Michael Carmody, has warned that such blatant untruths in advertising do nothing to assist compliance rates. They undermine the whole integrity of the taxation system and people's acceptance of the taxation system. The example of bracket creep is a simple adjustment of the scales themselves. It has been done many times before.The Prime Minister last month, and again on Tuesday, talked about how a Lear jet is not taxed. It is a great comparison: there were two Lear jets imported into Australia last year, but people eat fresh food every day of the week. Every hour of the day people use water and power, energy. Compare that with the many families from my electorate going to the football to watch the Knights and being forced to pay more for their tickets under a GST, paying GST on their hot dogs, chips and drinks for the kids at the football. According to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello), a GST is fair because Lear jets are non taxable now. As I said, it is an idiotic comparison.The Business Coalition and the Business Council of Australia say they support a simpler tax system. But how can a GST be simpler when more than a million small business operators would become tax collectors for the first time in their lives? There are 73,000 wholesale tax collection points now. More than one million small business people would become eligible for collecting a GST.It is appalling that the Business Council of Australia, this nation's top 100 corporation executives—the highest paid employees in the country with access to all of the taxation perks that are available; for whom paying income tax is almost optional—are lecturing to the rest of the community that those on lower incomes and families and small business people should be paying more tax. These top paid executives, who earn in one year more than most workers in this country earn in a lifetime, are lecturing to those people on lower incomes that they ought to be paying more tax. I would like to see, from the Business Council of Australia, some views about One Nation and the damage that One Nation is doing to our export markets in Asia. On that matter, Mr Stan Wallis and the Business Council of Australia are mute. (Time expired)547717:53:005477Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—For nearly 50 years Australian taxpayers have unanimously supported the fundamental principles of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Providing a comprehensive variety of affordable and accessible medicines, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme gives all Australians a tangible degree of peace of mind. However, despite taxpayers' overwhelming support for the fundamental principles of the scheme, the unavoidable reality is that in recent years taxpayers have not been able to adequately fund the scheme—a fact that the former Labor government recognised but left to the coalition to solve. An ageing population combined with the development of highly specialised medications have significantly contributed to an alarming increase in the annual operating costs of the scheme.In 1983, when Bob Hawke brought the Labor Party to government, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme cost taxpayers less than $500 million per year. At the end of Labor's 13 unhappy years in government, this figure had increased fivefold to a staggering $2.5 billion dollars. This amounts to 73 per cent of the total amount collected by the medicare levy. The coalition government is resolutely committed to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The coalition government is also committed to responsible fiscal management.Accordingly, the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) and his parliamentary secretary, the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth), have restructured the pharmaceutical benefits scheme so that it continues to supply affordable and accessible medicine to patients without the crippling effects of unchecked, augmenting costs.Commencing on 1 February next year, the introduction of therapeutic group premiums will save taxpayers an estimated $561 million over the following four years. It is significant to note that, despite this efficiency measure, it is anticipated that the costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme will increase by over $200 million in the next financial year. The therapeutic group premiums will affect a limited number of categories of medication used for the treatment of conditions including hypertension, stomach ulcers, depression and high cholesterol. The groups of medications covered in this measure were chosen thoughtfully and specifically by the advisory committee to the government. In instances where a number of medications are similar in therapeutic effect, government subsidies will be prioritised according to the best value for money medications.It is important to note that when most of the medications in each of these defined groups were listed on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the sponsors claimed comparable safety and efficacy with other medications in the group and were also seeking the same price as the alternative. In such circumstances, under the therapeutic group premiums a base price is established and the benchmark price drug in each group will continue to be subsidised at the present level of $3.20 for concessional consumers and $20 for general consumers. Therefore, in each of the categories, there will be at least one specific medication which will cost the patient not one cent more than at present. Indeed, only 118 medications, or six per cent, out of a total pharmaceutical benefits scheme of 1,800 medications will be affected at all. And because this scheme encourages pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors to become more competitive, of these 118 medications approximately half will have no premium payable whatsoever. Of the other half, no single medication will cost consumers more than $5 and only two are at a differential of $4. Of the approximately 60 medications actually affected, the average price differential is only 63c—and not $18, as irresponsibly claimed by the shadow minister for health.The therapeutic group premiums only operate in circumstances where there are a group of comparable medications. This scheme does not inhibit access to necessary and important medications that offer a patient substantial clinical advantages over existing treatments. This new measure also allows for the flexibility of adding medications to the concessional list as they are developed.The introduction of therapeutic group premiums does not affect the ability of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme to continue to provide subsidised medicines for consumers. Pensioners and other health care card holders, including the 220,000 new self-funded retirees who are now holders of the Commonwealth seniors health card, will continue to pay $3.20 for each pharmaceutical benefit until they reach their safety net threshold of $166.40, after which prescriptions are free. In addition, aged and sickness pensions, including part-pensioners and Veterans' Affairs benefit holders, will still receive a pharmaceutical allowance of $5.40 indexed into their pensions per fortnight to help defray the out of pocket pharmaceutical expenses.The coalition government has consulted widely and comprehensively in the implementation of this new measure and has produced a fair, equitable and affordable scheme. (Time expired)547817:58:005478Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—The member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) alleged in his contribution to the adjournment debate tonight that this government was pandering to One Nation. I think it is important to respond to this allegation.The member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) talks a great deal about democratic accountability; and it has to be said that this parliament has its faults. Nevertheless, it is the nation's prime forum to test the mettle and to refine the ideas of those who would be its leaders. This democratic accountability means not running away from the parliamentary obligations of a member of parliament.Earlier this week, on two occasions, I posed a number of questions to the member for Oxley. I asked: why is her party set up as a company controlled by just three people, rather than as a party with the usual mechanisms of democratic accountability? I asked: why has she put her future in the hands of David Oldfield and David Ettridge, two people who go back a lot further with each other than with her?I also asked the member for Oxley how she can guarantee that none of the $500,000 to which One Nation Limited is entitled under the public funding provisions of Queensland will end up in the pocket of David Ettridge.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—I request that the debate be extended.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The debate may continue until 6.10 p.m.547818:00:005478Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I also asked: how much money is One Nation paying to David Oldfield on top of the salary, travel allowance and overtime he gets from the Commonwealth? I asked: how could the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) justify the position of her staffer on the Commonwealth payroll acting as One Nation's campaign director in Queensland? I wanted a guarantee from her that David Oldfield was acting without pay in this period. Finally, I posed the question: who is really running One Nation? Is it Pauline Hanson, David Oldfield or a bunch of brownshirts? Just what is going on in this party is exemplified by the ransacking of a One Nation candidate's office because that candidate did not agree with the party line as expressed by David Oldfield.We have come to a sorry pass in this country when goons are used to settle disputes inside political parties. The candidate in question is Terry Sharples. I received a fax from him this afternoon. He says:My distinct impression . . . was that the plans and strategies of David Oldfield were less about winning seats in this election and more about the manipulation of the Queensland State Election to enhance his chances in the coming Federal Senate election.I quote again:I put my money up front and joined the One Nation party five weeks ago on the understanding that I was a member of a functioning democratic party; it now appears that I have stood for a party of faceless manipulators, hiding behind the persona of Pauline Hanson, who privately they refer to as "the product".We all know that the existing political parties are far from perfect. However, this kind of conduct is absolutely inexcusable.I asked for answers to these questions on Monday night. On Wednesday night, I renewed my request for answers. There have been three lengthy adjournment debates in this parliament since then. The member for Oxley has said nothing. She claims to be listening to the people of Australia. She is certainly not listening to the parliament of Australia or the representatives of the people in Australia in this parliament. Not only has David Oldfield been writing the words that she says and is increasingly speaking to, but one is forced to the conclusion that he is too busy running One Nation to actually write a speech for the member for Oxley to deliver in response to the questions I have asked. Yet she was quite happy to give television interviews in her office today, but she is not prepared to come into this parliament to respond to the sorts of questions that I think her One Nation supporters would like her to answer.I suggested earlier this week that perhaps the member for Oxley has become David Oldfield's puppet. I am inclined to conclude that she has now become David Oldfield's hostage. At this rate, she will become the Howard Hughes of the parliament or a Deng Xiaoping character who is trotted out occasionally but who says nothing at all. This parliament deserves an answer and her supporters deserve an answer. On behalf of the parliament, I ask her to break this over-long silence next week at the earliest possible opportunity. I table the letter from Mr Sharples. 547918:04:005479Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I want to comment briefly in the few moments that are left about matters raised by the honourable member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) dealing with this government's attitude to racism. The first point I will make is that racism is abhorrent wherever it is manifest. As far as this government is concerned, it is totally and absolutely unacceptable. That is the starting point for what I want to say.My second point is that, as far as the government is concerned, there is no ambiguity about our position in relation to the One Nation Party. We believe that it is far more about dividing Australia than uniting it. I personally find it most abhorrent when it expresses a commitment to Australia which, by the very way it is put, by implication leaves some Australians out. When people and their families have made a commitment to this nation and its future and when their very entitlement to be here is brought into question, it is no doubt about dividing Australia rather than uniting it.It is regrettable, in a sense, that the opposition, by the way in which it is responding to this concept pressed by the so-called One Nation Party, is about promoting the time it spends suggesting that we are not as robust in our condemnation as it is. This only serves to further highlight rather than diminish in people's minds the so-called One Nation agenda.The comments in relation to the anti-racism campaign are in exactly that form. The honourable member for Batman knows that when he says there is a lack of commitment it is not demonstrated by the facts that he himself put. There remains a financial commitment to a campaign. The commitment was for the first tranche of funds, with the second tranche still committed but subject to an evaluation that the program itself is effective in achieving its result of reducing racist views within our community.The member for Batman then questioned whether or not there is an intention to go on with the campaign and used some of the research—and he certainly characterised that research quite inaccurately—as a basis for suggesting a lack of application on our part. I have made it clear that the government intends to implement a campaign which is effective. To be effective it needs to be soundly based on research, and the research itself needs to be complete. That research needs to demonstrate that what you are going to implement will be effective in achieving its outcome.Let me make it very clear that we have been proceeding with that campaign and with the undertaking of that research. I have not publicly released the research. I do not think it is helpful to put out the nature of questions which are products of qualitative research, which is the subject of testing quantitatively, into the public arena. To suggest that they constitute push polling when they are put certainly misrepresents them, but when they are run in newspapers—not entirely accurately, I might say—and then paraded in this House as questions which in some way suggest a lack of commitment by this government to statements which people are asked to agree or disagree with shows a total misunderstanding of the nature of research, the way in which it should be conducted and the purpose which you are seeking to achieve.It does the honourable member little credit. If he wants to know about these matters, I am certainly prepared to brief him—I have made that very clear—but it is not helpful to have research which is important for being able to benchmark attitudes now and into the future released at this stage. (Time expired)18:09:005480House adjourned at 6.09 p.m.Notices5480The following notices were given:Mr Fahey to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research, Bentley, WA.Mr Fahey to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Lavarack Barracks Redevelopment Stage 2, Townsville.Documents5480The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 June 1998:Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan—Amendment No. 21.Child Care Act—Determination 1998 Child Care (High Need Regions).Child Care Payments Act—Guidelines Vaccination Schedules No. VS/18/98/1.Export Market Development Grants Act—Determination 1998 No. 1/IPCA.Parliament Act—Parliamentary Zone—Proposal to—Construct pedestrian and cycle access, Commonwealth Avenue Bridge and Kings Avenue Bridge approaches.Demolish old Parliament House Annex.Refurbish of old Parliament House Library external works.Revised proposal to undertake minor roadworks in front of old Parliament House.Taxation Administration Act—Rulings 1998 Nos. TR 98/10, TR 98/11.1998-06-25Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members5481548109:40:005481Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Members will have noticed that the Liberal Party have been taking out full-page ads in newspapers throughout Australia promoting the benefits of the common youth allowance. What these ads do not tell us is that a person—in this case, Vesna—would receive the full allowance only if her parents' combined income was below $23,000 and would receive no allowance at all if her parents' combined income exceeded $34,000. This is the bombshell that is going to hit those on the other side from 1 July—those who, in company with One Nation, voted for the common youth allowance. Gird your loins and prepare yourself for the onslaught that each of you will receive in your electorate offices as outraged parents descend on you.Recently a woman came to see me, as her 18-year-old son was about to lose his income support. She was very agitated and challenged me on many issues. Whilst being sympathetic towards her, I did make the point that I was a member of the opposition, had voted against the relevant legislation and had indeed spoken out warning of the implications. I did suggest that this concerned woman should go to see a colleague in the neighbouring electorate, the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), who is a member of the government and who supported this legislation. I brought this up in the House about a month ago, and I said:I do not expect this mother to be fobbed off by the member for Gilmore. I expect the member for Gilmore to actually meet this mother. I expect her to defend her vote in this place to introduce the common youth allowance.The mother actually rang my office this week to give me a progress report on how her visit to the member for Gilmore went. The member for Gilmore told this mother that she was an activist for some group. If you don't agree with the member for Gilmore, you are called an activist and dismissed.Imagine if an angry mother of an 18-year-old who, on 1 July, is going to cop a big drop in income support because this government promised him a job and never delivered it is dismissed from all concern and called an activist. This woman was an activist, an activist in trying to look after the interests of her son, just like every other parent around the country.There is another twist to this whole issue. One might ask, now that we are talking about how members voted on this legislation, just how the friend of the ordinary Australian, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), voted. The answer for all to see is in the Votes and Proceedings of the House dated 26 November 1997. The One Nation Party leader, the member for Oxley, voted with the Howard government to cut income support payments to young people and to saddle their parents with the extra financial burden.Those opposite have been somewhat spooked this last week by the result of the Queensland election. Believe me, brothers and sisters, you ain't seen nothin yet! Just wait until the impact of the common youth allowance hits your electorates next week. Then you will really know what being spooked is all about, as outraged parents of young people, and young people, beat a path to your electorate doors to challenge you about the way you voted to deprive them of their allowances. (Time expired)548209:43:005482Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—Sometimes it just seems that the world has gone mad. The recent success of the One Nation Party has rocked mainstream politics, and the question we need to ask is why. The main themes that One Nation has been famous for are its stands against Asian immigration and spending on Aboriginal people. Its leader has warned that Australia is in danger of being swamped by Asians, but why didn't she warn of the danger of being swamped by the British? The 1996 census figures show that 27.4 per cent of Australians were born in Great Britain, but 1998 figures show that only 4.8 per cent of Australians were born in Asia.Asian immigrants have brought with them their culture, skills and fabulous foods, and they have brought some truly tragic stories about escaping from trauma and torture. People have come from all over the world in need of counselling from organisations like STARRS in South Australia, including Cambodian refugees whose daily reality was to experience brutality at the hands of Pol Pot's regime.British immigrants also brought their culture, skills, food and stories. Great Britain sent my grandmother, without whom I would not be here. As we have seen this week, many British immigrants also have tragic stories about their abandonment and treatment as children in Australia. Their pain is finally being acknowledged and must be dealt with also.My good friend Dr Bernice Pfitzner is a great Chinese Australian who has made a tremendous contribution to this country as a doctor and as a former member of the South Australian parliament. My late grandmother also made a great contribution to Australia as a mother, a grandmother and as a daughter who cared for her dying parents. What's the difference? Is it that my grandmother did not look as though she came from somewhere else but that Dr Pfitzner does?One Nation has also made its name by criticising spending on Aboriginal people. It wants everybody to be treated equally. Does One Nation understand that, to the extent that it is possible to achieve equality amongst its citizens, governments have to spend more on some than on others because everyone starts life from a different place? If you are Aboriginal, that place is not always somewhere that most Australians want to be. Aboriginal babies are still three times more likely to die than non-Aboriginal babies. Aboriginal men live 20 years less than their non-Aboriginal brothers, and Aboriginal women 18 years less than their non-Aboriginal sisters. The unemployment rate amongst Aboriginal people is 38 per cent. If we did not spend $380 million each year on CDEP, the rate would be 59 per cent.A responsible government cannot ignore these shameful facts, and addressing them costs money. One Nation's success is a reaction against the fact that Australians do not believe the major parties listen to them or care about them, and that presents us with a major challenge. Who can blame them for being cynical when the adversarial nature of our two-party system sends them polarised messages every day? I refuse to believe that most of the people who are flirting with One Nation are anti-Asian and anti-Aboriginal. The world cannot be that mad, can it, Mr Deputy Speaker?Surely my grandmother's story, Dr Pfitzner's story and the stories of Aboriginal people are all important, as are their contributions, regardless of how they look. Their stories are all about joy, about pain and, most importantly, they are about family. (Time expired)548309:46:005483Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The first of July is a crisis day for many working families in my electorate of Greenway. It is on 1 July that many families' standard of living will be significantly reduced due to the introduction of the common youth allowance. I would like to relate the story of just two of these families.The first relates to a single father, Arthur, and his daughter, Melissa, who sat for her HSC in 1996 and then completed her first year of bachelor of commerce at the University of New England in 1997, but was unable to continue her studies this year due to lack of finance. Melissa is now 19, unemployed and receives unemployment benefits of $170 per fortnight. This young lady's income will drop to $20 per fortnight on 1 July due to the parental income assessment under the Commonwealth youth allowance system. She will then have to rely on her father for board and lodgings. This young lady has further difficulties in that she has a medical problem that currently makes her unemployable. She has applied for a disability support pension but has been assessed as being only 10 per cent incapacitated; therefore she is not entitled to this pension. To be entitled to the pension, Melissa would have to be assessed as being 20 per cent incapacitated and not be able to work for two years. The unreal aspect of this position is that if you are even one per cent incapacitated employers will not employ you.There is a further difficulty for this family. Arthur, the father, has estimated that his income has dropped by some 15 per cent due to recent enterprise bargaining negotiations. Many families are suffering this double effect of falling income and government reduction of social security.My second story relates to a mother who rang to advise me of the situation involving her son, who left school in December 1996. Since that time, he has completed a life skills training course at TAFE, worked for two months in the timber industry, worked for seven months as a tyre fitter on $4.50 an hour and had other occasional casual work. This young man is currently unemployed. He turns 18 on 30 June and his mother expected that he would then qualify for unemployment benefits and at least have sufficient money to enjoy a social life. But this young man, who is 18 months out of school, has completed a TAFE course, and has had work but is now unemployed, does not qualify for unemployment benefits.The government expects this low income family to support this young man. The combined income for this family is approximately $480 a week to support four people. Another son is an apprentice who can only marginally contribute to the family's budget. This situation has already caused tension in the family. The mother is worried that her son could leave home as he has done previously, on one occasion, and could possibly turn to a life of petty crime to obtain sufficient money to live.These two cases give examples of how this government's policies are hurting low income families. Young adults who are old enough to vote, to go to war, and to get married—many who do—and who are looking for work are clearly independent. (Time expired)548409:49:005484Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—It is with a little sadness that I rise to speak in this place today. On 4 June the member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis) asked a question of the Speaker in the House which went as follows:My question refers to the trial in this chamber of various locations being trialled by Hansard. It appears that a possible transcription error may have occurred during this period. I refer to pages 3974 and 4014 of the Hansard of 28 May for this House and the Main Committee. I note that Hansard has recorded a speech from the member for Makin in the Main Committee at 1.25 p.m. on that day and another speech in the House at 5.41 p.m. on the same day. These speeches appear to be identical. As I do not imagine for one minute that the member for Makin would make the same speech twice, would you please check with Hansard on the possibility of the error in transcription and get back to the House?That speech that I made was about reconciliation, and the importance of teaching our children—our next generation of leaders—that to differentiate one person from another you only have to ask their name, and that race, colour, religion, age, gender, disability, or, rather, special ability, is not critical in order to differentiate one person from another.I did not get to finish my speech in the Main Committee and, because I feel so strongly about the issue of reconciliation and our future generations, I felt that it was important enough to repeat my speech and finish it in the House. For the benefit of members here, I am now going to include the last two paragraphs of my speech because I did not get to finish it in this place or in the House. To put it into context, I had been referring to a camp that my two boys had been on during their school holidays, and the fact that they had not noticed that the boys they were sharing a cabin with had several physical and intellectual disabilities but that their mum—sadly, that person being me—had noticed.The remainder of that speech is about what my boys had to say, and it is for the purpose of the context that I will include several lines previously spoken both here and in the House. The only thing that my sons had noticed of any difference was that these guys, with supposed disabilities, were super cool dudes who could `swish a basket' like no-one else and sing the Crows club song in its entirety. Maybe therein lies our answer for reconciliation—the simple, honest acceptance by our children of those who may be different from us, without the blinkered perceptions of the grown-up adults of the current generation.It is up to us, with the help of our children, to ensure we pass on the most worthwhile of all life's lessons: acceptance of ourselves and others as truly worthwhile and valuable individuals. The member for Namadgi only had to come and ask me and I could have given her the answer. I am sure the constituents of Namadgi would be disappointed that their member chooses to waste her time combing through Hansard in order to attack a government member rather than using that time to represent her constituents in her seat of Namadgi.548409:52:005484Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—When the Chinese invaded Tiananmen Square and killed students who were holding court there, they were condemned by the United States government, by Australia and, I guess, by the Western world. The truth, of course, was that Western capital flooded into China. What Western capital was looking for was signs of stability. It is an absolute nonsense for anyone to suggest that the election of One Nation candidates to the parliament is going to destabilise Australia and lead to a reduction in foreign investment. It is simply not true. It is simply unwarranted scare tactics.What I object to very much are the actions of some Americans and American institutions in threatening this country. What we do in this country in terms of elections is entirely the prerogative of the people of Australia. It is a matter of national sovereignty and we do not want, and we certainly do not thank, the Americans, or the Indonesians for that matter, making comments on our electoral process.The reality is that, unless Australia gets back to a manufacturing industry, there will be no jobs. Constructing railways in the sky—as the government is now proposing to do—is not the answer. We have to redevelop an internal economy. It must be realised that an import replacement dollar has absolutely the same effects on the economy as an export dollar but it has other beneficial effects in that it stimulates employment. Until we realise this fact—a fact ignored by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and, sadly, the National Party, which today is an appendage of the Liberal Party—we are not going to be able to address the problems that are facing Australia.There is so much we could do in Australia. Unlike what One Nation says, it is not simply a matter of erecting tariff barriers. There are many other things you can do. The most important single thing is how a government feels about its people. If we were to look at government purchasing policy, we could do a lot to re-establish that manufacturing industry. I believe it is time for the people of Australia to recognise that governments have failed them and to take things into their own hands. They must start questioning in the supermarkets. They must start asking Woolworths and Coles why they are selling imported pork.In my own state we have developed a grader which is far superior to any imported grader and it costs half the price. If local government bodies around Australia were to buy this grader they would save on their capital investment and get enhanced performance. They would be contributing also to a reduction in our current account deficit and be putting Australia on the road to national sovereignty, a national sovereignty which we cannot fully exercise unless we are in the position of not having foreign debt. It is foreign debt that has to be gotten rid of, but under this present government, despite its loud trumpeting, foreign debt is actually growing and will continue to grow. (Time expired)548509:55:005485Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Two years ago when I first addressed the parliament I stated that one of my objectives was to see progress on the world heritage listing of the Blue Mountains. Therefore, it is a delight for me to announce this morning that just 20 minutes ago the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) announced that the bid for world heritage nomination for the Blue Mountains has been completed and it will be sent by the end of this month to UNESCO in Paris. It is a real pleasure to hear that and it is greatly satisfying to see that finally happening. This is the culmination of four years of hard work, cooperative work, by local community organisations, the New South Wales state government and the Commonwealth government.Those of us who live in the Blue Mountains have always known what a special place it is. It is a place of spectacular beauty, a place with many wonderful features, and it is a real pleasure to live there. However, world heritage nomination means that as well as being a place of spectacular beauty it will also be recognised as a place of global significance, both in terms of its natural features and in terms of some of its cultural features.The nomination of the Blue Mountains for world heritage listing involves one million hectares of national parks. This area includes the Blue Mountains National Park, the Wollemi National Park, Yengo, Nattai, Kanangra Boyd, the Gardens of Stone, Thirlmere Lakes, and Jenolan Caves national parks.The nomination of the Blue Mountains for world heritage listing will mean many things for the residents of the mountains. First of all, it will quite appropriately increase their sense of pride in their local region. It will increase their commitment to maintaining the natural beauty of the mountains and to doing everything they can to foster and protect the natural environment of the region.It will also mean an enormous boost for tourism. People travel from far and wide to visit the Blue Mountains to take in the beauty that we have there. World heritage listing will be a great boost for ecotourism. We are hopeful that the listing will occur before the Sydney Olympics, so this should be a great boost to tourism in the region. Tourism in the Blue Mountains is the prime generator of employment. So not only does this listing add further protection for the environment of the Blue Mountains national parks region of over one million hectares; it will also provide a great boost for the tourist and hospitality industries, and a great boost for employment opportunities for those people within the region.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Committees548654865486Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Hawker:That the House take note of the report.09:59:005486Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—This is an unexpected pleasure. The members who are listed to speak in the debate are on their way. They might have been diverted, or perhaps the lift may not be operational. In the meantime I am very pleased to make a contribution on the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration.This is a report entitled Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 1996-97. I must say that it really is a very valuable report, and it indicates the commonsense and the effectiveness of the committee system in the House of Representatives. I quote from the report:The Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration is empowered to inquire into and report on any matters referred to it by either the House or a Minister including any pre-legislation proposal, bill, motion, petition, vote or expenditure, other financial matter, report or paper.Annual reports of government departments and authorities tabled in the House shall stand referred to the relevant committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to report. Reports shall stand referred to committees in accordance with the schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report for 1996-97 was tabled in the House of Representatives on 23 October 1997 and was considered fully by the standing committee. The committee has made a number of recommendations:1 That the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission include in the undertakings section of its regular publication, The ACCC's approach to mergers: A statistical summary , details of the undertakings listed. (paragraph 2.27) 2 That as a matter of priority the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission prepare guidelines on the interaction between private sector parties and the Commission on the preparation of cases. The preparation of the guidelines should involve public consultation and the guidelines should be forwarded to this Committee for its consideration. (paragraph 3.53)3 That the Australian National Audit Office when undertaking its next financial audit of the AGS, look closely at the issues outlined by the Committee and related matters. (paragraph 3.60)4 That the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission monitor the impact of the change in responsibility for compliance programs and report on this matter in its 1997-98 annual report. (paragraph 4.7)I do welcome this opportunity to participate here in the Main Committee on this report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration. This debate indicates the fact that our committee system is effective and working. I would like to commend the committee on its report. As my good friend and colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) has now arrived to participate, I shall defer to that honourable gentleman.10:02:005487Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I thank the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) for accommodating me in this instance. He did an excellent job in commenting on the review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's annual report for 1996-97 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration.This was, in fact, a very important report. I had the pleasure of participating in the public hearings of our committee, more especially when we had the opportunity to ask of the Chairman of the ACCC a number of questions, particularly in relation to the engagement of solicitors—legal representation—in the Foxtel-Australis media merger case.This was a classic and unique example where we have an independent body from which the government has excised certain powers but, at the same time, has given it a vaster range of powers in relation particularly to competition policy, has given it independence and has provided it with a very wide range of options when it comes to the implementation of the government's competition policies, yet an organisation such as this makes some procedural errors and has within it inadequate checks and balances to ensure that it does not contravene basic operational standards that we would expect of a government agency.In this specific case, the ACCC, on 14 October 1997, instituted proceedings in the Federal Court seeking an injunction to restrain the Foxtel-Australis media merger. Of course, the ACCC was basing that action on the concept that the merger would be likely to substantially prevent, hinder or lessen competition in pay TV, telephony markets, and so on, in Australia, which, of course, contravenes section 50 of the Trade Practices Act.I would like to particularly focus at a later moment on the opening up of the local telephone service to competition. What was of particular concern to me in these hearings was that Bryan Frith reported in the Australian, on 31 October 1997, that:. . . the instructing solicitor from the Government Solicitor's Office, was questioned about the role of Optus in the action.He agreed—That is, the government solicitor's office agreed—that the ACCC had accepted legal resources and advice from Optus and that it had received evidence from Optus. It also expected that Optus would provide witnesses. My anger and sense of frustration, in relation to the role of the ACCC in this matter, was focused on the fact that Optus were the financial beneficiaries of the legal action undertaken by the ACCC. Yet the ACCC was prepared to have truck with Optus providing legal resources at a discounted value to the ACCC in this case.In relation to the government's role in certain areas, such as privatisation and contracting out, we say that, as a government, we cannot be both the predator and the gamekeeper. In relation to this specific case, it was quite clear from the perception point of view—if it was not actuality—that the ACCC was acting as both a predator and a gamekeeper, because its role is as a gamekeeper, yet it was accepting discounted legal services from Optus, who were the predator in relation to the Foxtel-Australis merger.I had a significant problem with this. I believed that the office of the Australian Government Solicitor were culpable in relation to this matter, because they were the ones—even though they are the solicitors for the ACCC—that engaged Optus. They were the ones that provided the ACCC with some advice to indicate that there was no legal impediment to the ACCC engaging the legal services over Optus's solicitors, Gilbert and Tobin. What I found quite interesting was this, and it is listed as table 3.1, on page 19 of the report:Professional fees charged by Gilbert & Tobin to the AGS for the two solicitors . . . Mr Glass was charged for 17 days at $412 per day. Even before I came into this place, as a commercial lawyer I was charging my clients $350 per hour, yet Mr Glass, who is a highly respected partner, as I understand it, of Gilbert and Tobin, was charging $412 per day. Gilbert and Tobin must be the most lucrative law firm in Australia to engage for legal work if they are charging $412 per day. But whatever the case, we will accept that was the rate that was charged by Gilbert and Tobin, Optus's solicitors, to the Australian Government Solicitors for this work. In addition, a more junior solicitor, Mr Wheeler, was charging $316 per day. There is no way, from a legal perspective, that you could operate any law firm if you were charging $412 per day for a senior lawyer and $316 per day for a more junior lawyer.What I found of most interest, however, is that the office of the Australian Government Solicitor, who are the solicitors to the ACCC and who had engaged a Gilbert and Tobin partner at, say, $412 per day, were charging the ACCC $250 per hour. They were charging their client $250 per hour plus an amount to be agreed with the ACCC to cover the AGS's cost of employing those solicitors. That is a middleman fee if ever I have seen one. The poor old ACCC is copping the blast. I am going to actually express some sympathy for the ACCC in this instance. I am feeling very generous today. The ACCC was being charged $250 per hour by the Australian Government Solicitor for legal services rendered by Gilbert and Tobin, and the Australian Government Solicitor was paying Gilbert and Tobin around $412 per day for a partner of Gilbert and Tobin. It does not stack up—what a surprise!Serious questions need to be asked of the Australian Government Solicitor. For example, are their on-costs so significant that they need to charge, say, $2,500 per day and yet pay someone else $412 per day when that someone else is providing all the legal advice? They are flow-on costs of up to 500 per cent in order to engage legal representation. The ACCC and the Australian Government Solicitor undertook to our committee that this sort of scenario would not occur in the future, given that it has proved extremely embarrassing. Also they believe there may be a perception that there was a conflict of interest—that having Optus provide discounted legal support to a government agency when that government agency was taking legal action against Optus's main commercial rivals was perceived to be a conflict of interest. It was—quite clearly. It distressed me, and I think it distressed most of the members of the committee, that it took our investigations, together with the investigations of Bryan Frith of the Australian and various other interested parties, to discover that this was the case, and it was regrettable that such an event should occur.In the short time I have left, I do want to say something about competition policy, because there is a growing mood amongst some political heroes in Australia—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Or heroines.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—or heroines—that we dump competition policy. I particularly refer to the comments by the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, and also the former Premier of Queensland, Rob Borbidge.AV5QUICKMr Quick—He's not the former Premier yet.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—I expect he will be, and I am being careful. Their comments add nothing to the national debate about the benefits of competition policy. Why? The fundamental problem with competition policy is that Australians and consumers are not seeing the tangible benefit of competition policy, because the benefits of competition policy are not readily identifiable as a new piece of infrastructure here, a new building over there or something that they can touch and feel and look at. It comes through in cheaper prices for STD phone calls; it comes through in cheaper prices for consumables in the fruit and vegetable section of Woolworths; it comes through in cheaper prices in relation to public transport; and it comes through in cheaper prices in a range of goods in a range of areas. But, for many Australians, they cannot identify what the tangible benefits are.I have to give credit to the Labor Party because they are the ones that have relentlessly been pushing competition policy in Australia over the last 13 years. Before we were elected to government the Labor Party was there pushing it relentlessly. Members of that party are amongst the strongest advocates for competition policy, and I think they are right. Good on them. They are now starting to distance themselves from it, and that is regrettable. They have to come back on the train, so to speak, come on the journey with us.A recent Economist study, reported in May, indicated that we had the very best competition laws in the world. The benefits of competition are that we are a lean, focused nation that is ready to accept the opportunities provided to us, not only in Asia but with the deregulation of international trade. If we have lean, hungry companies in Australia that are ready to access international markets, we will bring wealth back to Australia, we will create more jobs in Australia, and we will make our country as prosperous as it should be.The fundamental point is that, as a government, we have to sell competition policy better; we have to sell the benefits of competition policy to the public; we need to focus on what it really means in terms of exports. You have economic neanderthals like the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) and her entourage crossing the country saying that we need to stop the imports of pig meat. Yet people do not see that if we stop imports, we stop exports, and if we stop exports, we close down Australian jobs, like nothing anyone has ever seen. It is a simple equation. Competition policy means that we can create more export oriented jobs, and that means we have got jobs into the future in uncertain times.The ACCC needs to focus more attention on selling to the Australian people the benefits of competition, the benefits of all the pain that we have gone through. The main challenge ahead in relation to local telephony, which I was hoping to get onto but I have not had the chance, is that one of the most costly pieces of infrastructure for small business is local telephony and yet, in an area such as that, the opportunity is going to be grand into the future. (Time expired)10:18:005490Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—The role of the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, as stated in its annual report, is to:. . . improve competition and efficiency in markets, foster adherence to fair trading practices in well informed markets, promote competitive pricing wherever possible and restrain price rises in markets where competition is less than effective.This role is becoming extremely important in Australia's economic performance. The importance of a dynamic market cannot be underestimated. With the deregulation of so many industries over the past couple of decades, consumers in the Australian economy have benefited significantly from productivity improvements that have been associated with the increased competition. Monopolies, thankfully, are becoming a thing of the past. Very few industries now have only one supplier of goods and services. Even the waterfront is facing up to competition.JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—It always has.NK6Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCH—I think the member for Barton says that with a wry smile on his face. I do not want to be too harsh on him, because he is a great supporter of census retention and I thank him for his support on that issue. It is competition, however, that enables business to perform to its best, because in a competitive market it has to thrive to survive.Standards of service are significantly better in a competitive environment: one only has to look at Telecom 10 or 15 years ago, as compared with the modern-day Telstra. That does not mean that we do not have a number of complaints about services provided by Telstra as well, but we have to continue to monitor these to make sure that they lift their game on a continuing basis.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has a significant role to play in ensuring that industries are able to deliver the benefits of competition for the betterment of all Australians. A significant role played by the ACCC is certainly worth the $35 million that is invested in the budget for it. This money spent is worth the potentially billions of dollars that pro-competitive practices can save Australian industries and the Australian consumer.Our role as members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration is to review, in this instance, the work of the ACCC and to scrutinise its activities, because we have the important role of ensuring that, while potential monopolies are accountable to the ACCC, the ACCC is accountable to us and to the Australian people through us. That is a very important role that we play. The ACCC of course is independent of government, and I do not think there is any argument about that. The best way we can ensure that the ACCC performs well is to regularly scrutinise its performance.We conclude the report by saying that overall the ACCC is performing reasonably well; but, as the report shows, there are still areas for considerable improvement in its performance. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) did instance a couple of examples of concern. I recall a situation where he was sympathetic to the ACCC because it seemed that they were being ripped off. They were getting advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, and the Government Solicitor was subcontracting out some of the legal work to a firm of solicitors who were also being paid by Optus. It seemed that there was some sort of subsidisation going on, but the Australian Government Solicitor was charging the ACCC at commercial rates. We have looked into that issue and we note that things are going to change in the future.There are critics of the ACCC. Some critics say that it uses its very powerful influence excessively. It is accused often of having a tendency to transform markets to accord with its view of best competitive practice. The critics have accused it of coming to conclusions on the basis of poorly researched information or information that is incomplete. It has also come in for criticism for its preparedness to act on media reports or on reports coming from parties seeking to use the ACCC to gain a commercial advantage. These criticisms are going to occur: you have got to understand that the ACCC is always going to be controversial.There are many important challenges ahead. The telecommunications industry must be monitored to ensure continuing competition. In terms of local calls, there must be a fair system whereby each party is able to compete while providing benefits for consumers. Consideration must also be given to access to this local market for other service providers who may not own cables. Although significant reductions have occurred in the long-distance telephone market, there must also be further reductions in the years to come. Profit margins are extremely high for overseas calls, even though special rates are offered on odd occasions. For example, special deals for as low as $20 per hour to ring the UK are occasionally offered. However, I believe that we can do even better than that.We also have to look at the use of new technology which is coming on the scene. Over the past couple of years, the Internet has become increasingly popular. The nature of this technology presents a whole new set of challenges to the ACCC to encounter in the years to come, to ensure that big business does not engage in anti-competitive behaviour.In terms of waterfront reform, the ACCC has a continuing role to play in ensuring that anti-competitive practices are monitored and prevented. The waterfront is an extremely important area in terms of our international competitiveness and our economy. An efficient waterfront has the ability to ensure that our exports are competitive and that therefore our export businesses prosper. Such an environment creates more jobs for Australians. It is in instances like these that anti-competitive behaviour has in the past destroyed jobs, and this is now changing—thanks to government action. I would like to congratulate the ACCC for the stand that it has taken in the waterfront dispute.Another area of importance is the financial institutions sector. I believe the government has provided the economic conditions to help financial institutions grow. We have seen institutions like Aussie Home Loans, Westpac and others lead the way in cutting lending rates to home buyers and businesses. I think the government deserves some credit for creating the stable economic environment in which interest rates have been able to come down. Investment is very important in Australia because investment means jobs. The role of the banks must continue to be monitored by the ACCC because the cost of finance is a significant reason that firms choose to invest, which is so important for our economy.As Professor Fels said in his address to us on 20 November 1997, the ACCC is an enforcement body and not generally a policy adviser or a policy advocacy body, but sometimes the reason they get involved in that area is that the government wants to know a bit more about a particular market where they may be looking at taking much needed action. Competition policy is about improving the efficiency of our industry for the benefit of all Australians. There are further challenges ahead.With the sale of public assets, especially utilities, the ACCC will have a continuing role to play ensuring that the interests of all parties are protected. With the proposed sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, the ACCC will have an important role to ensure that the battlers do not get ripped off by a monopoly or duopoly. The conditions must exist for effective competition and safeguards must be in place against monopolies and any form of price collusion. These are some of the goals that the ACCC must achieve. It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that the conditions for competitive behaviour are set in place and it is the responsibility of the ACCC to enforce this anti-competitive legislation.Debate (on motion by Mr Reid) adjourned.Adjournment5492Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.549210:27:005492McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I raise an important matter which has been referred to by Sue Dunlevy, who is a reporter with the Daily Telegraph . She raised an issue concerning the pensioner revolt about the government's GST. What has happened is that this GST proposal is going to dramatically affect pensioners. Pensioners have worked all their lives and they have paid tax under one system and that system is, of course, by way of income tax. After retirement they have accumulated their savings and they have accumulated their superannuation entitlements. The whole nature of the game has changed under the GST regime. Overnight what has happened is that pensioners are going to lose the equivalent value of their assets as the amount of the GST. That is because the spending power of those assets will be reduced effectively by the size of the GST. If it is 10 per cent, obviously their assets are reduced by that amount. What has happened is that they are going to be paying a GST on everything that they spend. If they are unlucky enough to end up in a nursing home they will pay a GST on the government's nursing home accommodation charge. All people will pay a GST on non-prescription medications, train and bus fares, postage, phones, council rates, water rates, electricity, car registration and maintenance and insurance and health fund premiums. If they are involved in any sporting activities, whether it is bowls, golf, or indeed exercise classes at their senior citizen centres, they are going to have to pay a GST.The best analogy of this proposed tax was given to me by a constituent in my electorate who described it as `the arthritis tax'. He said, `Once you have got it, you've got it for life, it's only going to get worse and it gets you every time you move.' I think that is a pretty fair description. The Treasury has flagged compensation for people, particularly those on fixed incomes such as senior citizens. The Business Council suggested that the compensation package would need to be about $2 billion to $3 billion. The mere fact that the Business Council is proposing compensation is an admission of the effect it will have on people on fixed incomes. The reality is that, in 21 of the 23 OECD countries that have introduced a GST, the rates have gone up. In New Zealand, they have gone up 25 per cent, but what we have seen is that the compensation package has been eroded. If the New Zealanders think the GST is so good, why are so many New Zealanders coming to Australia? What is quite clear is that any compensation package is liable to be undermined and undermined quickly. While the government will try to buy off people on fixed incomes, the reality is that those compensation packages are going to be undermined.Why is the government introducing a GST? It says it is doing it for economic advantage. What it is doing is shifting the tax impost from businesses, as a result of pressure from the Business Council, and putting it onto families. Even Neil Warren for the Business Council of Australia said that inflation was going to increase by 5.6 per cent with the introduction of a GST. In New Zealand—again, another example—it went up by 8 per cent. So the cost of goods will go up. It is estimated that a family on a fixed income, a pensioner couple, will be at least $15 worse off under a GST.Labor accepts that there is a continuing need for tax reform in a modern society, but we say that tax reform should be that which benefits ordinary Australian families, particularly those on fixed incomes, and not that which relieves the taxation burdens on big business so that they can make more money for themselves and their executives at the expense of ordinary Australians, particularly those on fixed incomes.549310:33:005493Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Today I rise to speak about two environmental issues which affect my electorate of Makin in my home state of South Australia. One event which took place, which coincided with World Environment Day and which it was a great honour for me to participate in, was the Ardtornish Primary School's national launch of the `Your House' built-environment education kit. Fostering a sense of community, particularly in our young people, is very dear to my heart. I know that encouraging communities to work together is something which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has spoken about in a number of contexts, and I work very hard towards it in my electorate of Makin.I see the built-environment education kit as a very important link in this process. Architecture is obviously a profession which is all about improving the environment in which people live and work together. It was also appropriate that that launch took place on World Environment Day. So much of our focus tends, quite rightly, to be on the natural environment; however, our built environment is equally deserving of attention on a day such as World Environment Day.It is equally deserving of our attention because well designed buildings can address such issues as energy conservation, better use of space, minimisation of noise and other pollution, and minimisation of the impact on the external natural environment. This is a welcome initiative by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and praise is due, in particular, to Christina Coleiro, Nicolette Di Lernia and Sue Coad for the tremendous amount of work that they put into what I think is a first rate document. I know that it took five years to put together and that Christina and Nicolette joked that they would never have started it had they had known how long it would take. It has been an extraordinary task, in a voluntary capacity, from commencement to completion, and I congratulate them for a tremendous effort.It is very important that we pass on to our young people an appreciation and understanding of the form and function of the buildings in which we live and work. Recently, I visited a building display in which a building had been specifically designed to minimise the incidence of asthma. Everything from the layout of the building to the structure to the surfaces was designed with the purpose of minimising dust and exposure to asthma causing agents. It is this kind of thing that shows very clearly the positive impact that architecture can have on our lives. As a result of many innovations, a number of things can happen. Firstly, an innovation can create greater community awareness of the possibilities of world's best practice in architecture for our communities. Secondly, we will be significantly enhancing our students' future quality of life, in particular, their ability to use knowledge and technology to enhance their lives and the lives of others. Thirdly, we will hopefully be nurturing our future architects and designers by ensuring that Australians in this field will continue to be among the best in the world.There is another benefit that I hope will result from this initiative. We talk a lot about instilling pride in our young people, pride in their school, their community and their country. A sense of ownership is vital in encouraging personal responsibility and respect for our buildings and for the people who use them. I congratulate all of those involved in this project. It was with much pleasure that I was able to be part of such a special launch. I need to mention at this point that the principal, teachers and parents of the students at Ardtornish Primary School in my electorate of Makin need to be congratulated separately. The students, after sitting through three or four speeches, behaved excellently and the students, teachers and principal put in a tremendous effort to make the day a success.I am also very pleased to announce a further initiative by the federal coalition government in response to concerns about the natural environmental problems we are experiencing, particularly with the Murray River and dryland salinity and how we are affected in South Australia. Such long-term problems require long-term solutions, and that is exactly what this government is delivering.The Natural Heritage Trust, which is delivering $1.25 billion over five years, is a huge project designed to build and repair our environmental infrastructure. Two particular components of the Natural Heritage Trust are of enormous benefit to South Australia. We have committed $163 million for the Murray-Darling 2001 project and a massive $318 million for the national vegetation initiative. This has enabled funding for projects in South Australia such as the Salt to Success project, which was launched in the south-east of South Australia earlier this year and which is restoring salt affected lands through revegetation.As for the Murray-Darling initiative, the government has allocated $38.4 million in this budget as part of the trust. The significance of the Murray-Darling Basin to our economy, as well as to our ecology, cannot be underestimated. This initiative has included improving the health of the key river systems, encouraging economically and ecologically sustainable land and water management to reduce the salt and nutrients level in the river systems, and restoring associated land systems, wetlands and flood plains. (Time expired)549410:37:005494Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Francis Joseph Campbell was registered as a solicitor on 5 March 1974. On 8 July 1987 the statutory committee of the Law Society ordered that Francis Joseph Campbell be struck off the roll for professional misconduct. It found several charges proved against him for basically stealing money from clients and applying it to his own use. It is extraordinary, from the paperwork that I have seen, that no charges were ever laid against Francis Joseph Campbell. He is still at work in my electorate and at the moment, while he is not practising as a solicitor, he uses the fact that he is an ex-solicitor to give him some credibility. He also has the letters `JP' after his name. I have ascertained that he is apparently a justice of the peace, although that may not last for much longer.I have had numerous stories told to me in my office about the activities of Francis Joseph Campbell. First of all, Mr Stokes, a certified practising accountant, came to see me. He and his wife had the misfortune to get mixed up with Mr Campbell. Mrs Stokes and Mr Campbell were co-owners of a property at Strathpine and Mr Campbell wanted to buy out her share of the property. A contract was then signed but never completed. Meanwhile, as part of the contract, Mr Stokes and his wife vacated the premises. Mr Campbell then used these premises, which he styled the House of Judah—and I will come to some of the reasons behind that shortly—to swindle other people out of their money: in particular, pensioners and people who were suffering a disability. He never completed this contract. The contract fell over. The property, however, in the meantime has been sold by the mortgagee. There is a debt now of $37,000, which will no doubt ultimately come back to Mrs Stokes. But that is only a little bit of a lot of quite shocking behaviour by this particular individual who also uses a connection with the local church to give him some credibility.I saw Yvonne Hayward and Lenny Byrnes about this individual. Yvonne's father was a fellow who had been in prison for three years. He came out of prison. Campbell knew a man called Kingsford who owned a lawn mowing and gardening business. In or about October-November 1997, Campbell became aware of Kingford's position, through mutual attendance at church; he uses people who are vulnerable. Campbell brought Reeves and Kingsford together—Kingsford was old and fairly sick. He said he would find a buyer for the business. He used this chap who was just out of prison to be the buyer. He worked the deal so that Campbell would organise all of the business through his office. The chap who actually bought the business—the chap who had come out of prison—finished up not getting a cent out of this but actually paying money out for the business.In the meantime, he met a fellow called Lenny Byrnes, who had had a nervous breakdown. Lenny met Campbell when he was staying at a lodge at Shorncliffe. Lenny had been quite ill, but the manager had known Campbell and brought these two together. Campbell said he was setting up a boarding house, to be styled the House of Judah, and would he be interested in coming in? Lenny was already paying $95 a week for board, which included three meals a day for five days of the week. Campbell said he would do a deal where it would be $90 a week, three meals a day, seven days a week. So Lenny was, as he said, `sucked in'. He came to this place which was formerly the Stokes's place. He told Lenny that this would be a halfway house for people who were down and out; they would get their food, shelter and so forth. Lenny was on a disability pension. Campbell used his wife to get involved. There were actually eight people in this house and he was using this to create an identity and to generate the impression that he was generating income—that is, he had them sign tenancy agreements and then he used that to borrow money.This fellow needs to be stopped. He is an absolute crook. I call on the Justices of the Peace through the Justice Department to deregister him, and also on the police to investigate this individual. (Time expired)549510:42:005495Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—Today I raise an issue that is constantly being brought to my attention by my constituents in the electorate of Forde—namely, the appalling behaviour and standard of customer service that is offered in our major banks. I am not an advocate of simply turning back the clock. I fully realise that deregulation of our banking sector is necessary to ensure that our economy keeps pace with international changes and advantages. The reality is that Australia is part of the global economy and if we want to increase or even maintain our substantial export earnings—and it must be remembered that, as a nation, we export much more than what we import—we cannot just turn our back on the rest of the world. Some people would like to, but that is a simplistic idea that would cost hundreds of thousands of Australians jobs and financially cripple regional and rural Australians who produce most of our exports.I am, however, deeply concerned that deregulation of the banking system has gone too far. We are seeing a situation where shareholders' interests are all-important. I fully understand that banks are businesses, not charitable institutions. But the balance has simply been tipped too far. We are seeing record profits at a time when more and more people are dissatisfied with the products and services being offered by banks. I am, of course, talking in general terms, and there are always exceptions to the rule. But I have a file of different instances where local residents have raised serious concerns about the way they have been treated by their banks. I am sure that other honourable members here have heard of similar cases.We have all seen instances of banks taking a hard line, often even when it makes little economic sense, foreclosing on home or business loans for well below market value and shattering the lives of many people involved—good people who have a genuine commitment to repaying their loans but may have temporarily fallen on difficult times. It would take all night for me to explain each case in detail. I believe it is time that banks took a good hard look at their approach and at community expectations, because the community expects much better—and they have the right to.I simply wanted to highlight one case in point today. It is not an individual instance, but it certainly is indicative of the approach being taken. Two weeks ago, on 11 June 1998, the ANZ Bank announced it was increasing interest rates on fixed home loans, reacting to speculation. That was all it was, that the Reserve Bank may—and I stress may—increase official interest rates. The next day, despite the firm view expressed by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) that there was no need to take such action, the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and Colonial all put up their fixed rates, most by about 0.5 per cent.As we know, the Reserve Bank have not put up official interest rates. The temporary pressure on the Australian dollar—caused only by our geography, I might add—has eased. The Reserve Bank have said that they do not see any need to increase interest rates and are committed to maintaining low interest rates, as is our policy. I commend the Treasurer on achieving such low interest rates. It makes a world of difference to the many families in Forde who are saving $330 a month, on average, or are going to own their own home many years sooner.But the question these people, and all Australians, have every right to ask is: when are the banks going to bring their fixed rates back down? Why is it that it takes weeks, sometimes even months, for the banks to pass on a decrease in official rates, but when there is even a little speculation about an increase, they rush in and jack them up? It is indicative of their approach. It is why we saw credit card rates stay at ridiculously high levels for so long. It is no doubt why they are all posting huge profits. But I think we have all got to stop and ask ourselves: is this really a fair cop? Is it really what we want from our banks? It is time for consumers to say enough is enough and to demand better from their banks.It would be worth while if the media scrutinised the actions of the banks a little more closely. If a small business acts in a way that is unfair and impacts harshly on people's lives, it gets jumped on. But it is happening all the time, on a daily basis, with the banks. The papers all had the headlines two weeks ago `Banks put up interest rates'. Why don't they run the headlines now and ask: why haven't the banks put those rates back down?The Treasurer was absolutely right when he said that there was no need for the banks to overreact as they did and put rates up. I call on the banks to show a little less enthusiasm when it comes to making decisions that will cost the average Australian, and a lot less reluctance to pass on the financial benefits of this government's very sound and secure economic management.I would like to take the 17 seconds that I have left to talk about another irresponsible action, and that is by Peter Weir in his satire piece in yesterday's Courier-Mail, `The Last Supper'. He brings not only our profession down but his own profession. There are some really good journalists out there, and to write rubbish like this is indicative of his attitude. (Time expired)549710:48:005497Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Today I wish to raise an issue which I am sure many in this chamber are familiar with. It centres on that hoary issue of the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency and its ability to be able to exact justice for the clients it is supposed to serve. I would be the first to agree that the current system is far in advance of what was in place before, but the trouble with introducing a new system of payment is that you increase people's expectations. If there is a failure to meet this, you have a huge number of angry and frustrated people. Whom do they blame? Politicians, of course!Try and get some justice for these people and you have to wend your way through the most complicated system yet created. If you are an aggrieved client trying to make sense of the system, hoping to have the bureaucracy see your point of view and perhaps unravel the mess, you have to be joking. With so many Australian marriages faltering and partners choosing to leave, with so many endeavouring to enter new relationships with all the associated hassles that often brings, of course you are going to see people under pressure.The people and the family that I want to allude to today are those in a happy, but strained, second marriage: happy because they have a solid and lasting new relationship; strained because one partner comes with the baggage from the Child Support Agency. The husband is doing the right thing by his children and paying his ex-wife the maintenance due to her. This baggage is solely centred on the non-payment of money by the ex-husband of the wife and the inability of the wife to be able to exact her rights under law. The ex-husband's failure to comply with his obligation as set down under the Child Support Agency rules and regulations means that he owes his former partner in excess of $16,000. This fact has placed enormous stress and strain on this new relationship.The couple called me and asked me to come over to their place so that they could explain the details. The couple have sat down and worked it all out. Currently they are renting privately and have all the usual debts associated with living in modern Australia. They, like many other couples, would like to take advantage of the low interest rates and the low cost of housing in Tasmania, so that they can purchase their own home. This is not possible, because the additional money due to the wife is not coming in to give them this choice. What are their options? Having done their sums, they now realise that, if the husband opts out of full-time employment, he and his new family are $64 per month better off and have the advantage of being able to access the health care card benefits.What sort of society is this that we are fostering? What sort of message does it send out to our young children? The thing that frustrates me more than anything else is: what can I can do, as a politician, to assist the husband to stay in full-time employment? Why can't the Child Support Agency exert the necessary pressure on the ex-husband to have him pay what he owes, so that everyone in this case can live as they should? I would honestly appreciate it if the minister responsible for this agency would give me the right words to say to this family in real trouble. As I said at the outset, this is one of many such families right throughout my electorate and right throughout Australia.If we institute a system, it must work. I know there are complications and I know it is easy for ex-husbands and ex-wives to go on the dole and not to pay their obligations, but it causes enormous pressure. This family, who are doing the right thing, trying to get ahead, trying to give their children all the opportunities available to them in Australia, are in the situation where there is enormous strain on the family. That the only way out is for the husband to give up a good, well-paid job and go on the dole is absolutely appalling.549810:52:005498Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise to make a few comments on the Queensland election result and the influence of the One Nation Party. For 20 years, Australian people have been spoken at, not to, by governments. They have been told that change is good, change is what we need. But they have not been told why change is good. They have just been told to accept change and that `It is good for you.'The support of the One Nation Party has been created by a lot of little people—not racists, not bigots. The Queensland result had nothing to do with candidates, nothing to do with policies. It was, as I see it, a plea from the little people to be heard. For 20 years they have been told that change is good, but they walk out their front door and they see their bank disappear. They walk out their front door and they see the world that they have known for most of their life changing. Many of the changes they do not like, but governments of all persuasions keep telling them that change is good and they should be happy about it. But no-one, for 20 years, has bothered to listen to the little person in the street. That was why I got involved in politics, why I stood in my electorate as a little person, a small business person, a kid that left school and bought a milk run and tried to keep a family together. I got sick and tired of being told by government what was good for my business. No-one came and asked me what I thought, but we were told every day.The people in the Queensland election, and other people who also support the One Nation Party, are not doing it because of policies and outstanding candidates. Some of the people who got elected in Queensland from the One Nation Party joined up only two weeks before the election and did not do anything, did not put out any policies. Most sane-thinking people in Australia know the party's policies mean nothing and are a disaster for this country. It is all about being recognised and being listened to. All major parties and all governments in Australia need to take a good hard look at themselves and at what we are trying to do. I am very proud to be a member of the coalition government, a government that I believe has done more in two years than any government has done in this country for decades. But, at the same time, we need to explain to people what we have done and what the benefits really are.Our economic policies have created the best investment environment that we have seen in this country for 30 years. We have given young people in this country hope again of owning their own home. I give you an example of a family I know. Three years ago, no-one in that family was in the work force. The husband had lost his job in the recession that we `had to have', and was on a disability pension. The young girl had left school and was unemployed, and the family had two other children.Eighteen months ago, the girl got a job with a small company that has expanded and grown. The father, who had once been the breadwinner in that family, has now also got a job with that company. That girl has just put a deposit on her first home. She is 20 years old. That would never have happened back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, with interest rates running at 16 and 17 per cent. Another of the children has left school, having done her HSC. She struggled long and hard for six months looking for a job, and two weeks ago she got that job—a traineeship, one of the 100,000 traineeships that this government has created.The company that they both work for has relocated to my electorate and is going to add jobs for another two or three people. We are getting new jobs in the electorate of Robertson every single day. We are getting companies to relocate there and expand. Economically, things are going quite well. There are very many problems still to be resolved, but the difficulty is that the government, as with other governments before it, has not explained why some of these changes are good for us. What we all have to do, as local members, is take a good hard look at how we are explaining to people what we are trying to do and what we want for the future of this great country.Main Committee adjourned at 10.58 a.m.