1998-06-293817REPS550101998-06-29Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous5501Miscellaneous5501Motion (by Mrs Sullivan)—by leave—agreed to:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would allow:(a) the resumption of the debates on motions to take note of committee and delegation reports presented at this sitting to be adjourned to a later hour this day, and(b) the order of the day for the resumption of debate on each motion to be called on separately at a later hour.Committees55015501550112:32:005501Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the report of the committee entitled Deportation of non-citizen criminals , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—Over the past 18 months, the committee has been conducting a comprehensive review of criminal deportation arrangements, which are under the control of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, MP, and which are administered by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The committee found that the existing scheme was adequately managed, although aspects of the scheme should be strengthened to improve the protection afforded the Australian community. The committee has responded to the 58 submissions and over 300 pages of transcript evidence it received with recommendations to ensure that the criminal deportation scheme remains what parliament intended—a fair and effective scheme protecting the community from further crimes by non-citizens.For 15 years the current deportation scheme has sought to protect society from criminal non-citizens whose actions have demonstrated their unsuitability to remain part of the community. In that time, several developments have affected the operation of the scheme. Although the committee is convinced that the existing arrangements operate adequately, it nevertheless recommends strengthening the process to reflect the goal of protecting the community. The recommendations are based on evidence of a widespread consensus that aspects of the scheme should be modified and updated. The changes recommended, however, do not overturn the fundamental elements of the existing system.The committee's 21 recommendations go to all areas of the existing scheme: refining the existing legal framework; suggesting amendments to the ministerial and departmental policies; and strengthening liaison between the department and state and territory agencies.The major recommendations involve changes to the review arrangements to reflect the central role of the minister as the criminal deportation policy and decision maker; the statutory time limit on non-citizen liability to deportation to ensure serious crimes after 10 years residency can still be considered under the deportation arrangements; the information exchange with state and territory justice and prison agencies to ensure that each non-citizen prisoner is considered in a fair manner; and the ministerial deportation policy statement to specify all relevant community views and the weight to be given to those views. These changes will improve the balance between the sometimes competing objectives of the scheme, protecting the community against the risk of further criminal acts by non-citizens and ensuring that the rights of the non-citizen are taken into account.The committee concludes that, subject to the changes recommended in the report, the criminal deportation scheme must continue. The absence of the power to deport non-citizens who commit crimes offensive to the wider community would strike at the heart of community acceptance of Australia's migration programs. It is also important that non-citizens who have abused their residence in Australia by committing serious crime are not permitted to remain in Australia. The community has been served well by the existing arrangements but the revisions unanimously recommended by the committee will instil greater community confidence that the scheme operates effectively, efficiently and fairly to protect society.My thanks go to all the members of the committee, especially the deputy chair, Senator Jim McKiernan, for their support throughout the inquiry. As chair, I appreciated the efforts of members from all political parties to achieve a consensus on the direction and scope of the changes necessary to strengthen the scheme. My thanks go to the secretariat staff: the original secretary, Andres Lomp; the interim secretary, Judy Middlebrook; and the current secretary, Margaret Swieringa, and her staff—in particular, Shane Holt, Gim Del Villar and Penne Humphries. I commend the report to the House.12:35:005502Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—This comprehensive report, Deportation of non-citizen criminals , was completed over an 18-month period by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. I congratulate all members of the Joint House and the secretariat on the preparation of a very worthwhile report.The preparation of the report has been an important process which all parliamentarians should note with care. It is about effectively protecting our society from non-citizen, overseas, criminal influences. The committee found that we need to maintain policies on criminal non-citizens which are clear, unambiguous, consistent and transparent. As such, the committee believes that the existing scheme is adequately managed, although aspects of the scheme should be strengthened to improve the protection afforded the Australian community. The major concern is that the minister should have the power to control the program.The committee received 58 submissions and took more than 300 transcript pages of oral evidence. It was clear to members of the committee from that evidence that the Australian community wants to see a fair and effective scheme protecting our nation from criminal non-citizens.Since the current scheme was established 15 years ago, there have been minor changes which affect the operation of the scheme and which, it may be argued, give concern to the community about the protection of our nation. I believe the most important change in the last 15 years has been the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as a review body, now having the right to overturn even decisions by the minister about deporting non-citizens.The committee has come up with some important recommendations which I believe have successfully struggled with what are sometimes complex and competing objectives—how do we protect the Australian community against criminal elements who are non-citizens while at the same time uphold the rule of law and respect the rights of the non-citizen?The 21 recommendations cover all aspects of the scheme, but the most important are those which maintain and strengthen our criminal deportation scheme. These recommendations include: firstly, the need to reflect the central role of the minister as the criminal deportation policy and decision maker; secondly, the statutory limit on non-citizen liability to deportation to ensure that serious crimes after 10 years of residency can still be considered under deportation arrangements; thirdly, the information exchange with state and territory justice and prison agencies to ensure that each non-citizen prisoner is considered in a fair manner; and, finally, the ministerial deportation policy statement to specify all relevant community views and the weight to be given to those views.I congratulate the chair, the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus), and the deputy chair, Senator McKiernan from Western Australia, on the hard work they have put into the report and thank the secretariat for assistance given to the committee.In conclusion, I think this is a fair report, supported by all on the committee. It is about maintaining a fair and effective scheme. I urge all members of the House to consider this report on merit, because it is about solutions and it is about strengthening complex arrangements concerning very difficult issues. We do not need further empty rhetoric from some sections of the backbench on a very complex issue. Let us make sure we deal with these issues in a proper way and that we put on the table reasonable proposals to strengthen the operation of the scheme. We should not attack it and suggest that it is really not carrying out an effective system of protecting Australia from criminals who are non-citizens. I commend the report to the House. I ask all members of the House to clearly consider it in the proper way and not look for empty rhetoric and non-solutions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Hindmarsh wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated later?CU4Ferguson, Martin, MPMrs GALLUS—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.5503550312:39:005503Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I present the committee's report on the competitive tendering of welfare service delivery entitled What price competition? , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.ML6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—I am pleased to table the fifth report by the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. This report, just tabled, is the first to specifically examine the desirability and feasibility of competitive tendering of welfare service delivery and the core issues surrounding it, including the current levels of service provision by the non-government welfare sector, the adequacy of current monitoring of performance standards of the sector, the role of government in standards setting and monitoring of accountability standards and the role of government in measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of new service delivery arrangements.The inquiry was first referred to the committee by the Minister for Health and Family Services, the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, in April last year. It was referred against a background of continued government responsibility for welfare service delivery and for the specific aim of providing a more effective basis for future decisions regarding the adequacy of monitoring of standards and the appropriate role for government in measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the new service delivery arrangements.The welfare service sector is a significant contributor to Australia's economic and social welfare, with expenditures of around $9 billion annually or almost two per cent of GDP. These services are delivered by some 11,000 community based and church affiliated organisations, as well as numerous private for-profit companies and state, territory and Commonwealth government agencies. The report shows that contracting out and competitive tendering can have a range of potential impacts on welfare services—including impacts on the cost, quality and accountability of service delivery—as well as on volunteers and on the welfare sector itself. However, the extent of these impacts needs to be properly assessed. With this in mind, the committee has recommended that government agencies with responsibility for the delivery of welfare services should fund independent research into the impact of contracting out and competitive tendering. This research should include input from contracting agencies, service providers, consumer representatives and other relevant stakeholders.There is much concern in the area of performance monitoring. While there have been significant improvements in the quality assurance measures currently in place for welfare services, current approaches to performance monitoring have a number of important limitations. These include the problems with developing robust performance indicators for outcomes and outputs, uncoordinated approaches to the development of performance standards and quality assurance mechanisms, problems relating to accreditation, high cost of reporting and limited expertise in performance monitoring.The committee has recommended that standard setting and performance measurement functions, including centralised data collection for the welfare service sector, be transferred to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare as a way of overcoming these limitations. Moreover, the committee has recommended that service specific advisory committees should be established, comprising an equal representation from contracting agencies, service providers and consumer representatives in order to facilitate the effective flow of information between all service stakeholders and the AIHW.Another important concern of this inquiry was the role of government in setting and monitoring performance and accountability. In this regard, the committee believes that government, in partnership with other relevant stakeholders, should immediately examine the key areas of robust service agreements, efficient and fair tender process and effective, ongoing management of service agreements. The committee also considers that current approaches to assessing the suitability and desirability of exposing welfare services to competitive pressures can be significantly improved by looking at the contestability in terms of continuum. This relates to establishing a proper framework in which appropriateness of tendering any services can be considered. (Extension of time granted)At present, the continuum of contestability approach to assessing the feasibility and desirability of contracting and competitive tendering is still underdeveloped in Australia. With this in mind, the committee recommends that further work needs to be undertaken on this model as a matter of urgency. It is the committee's strong view that no further contracting out of welfare services should take place until a continuum of contestability framework is developed for determining the suitability of these services for contracting out. This framework should include service related and non-service related factors and be reviewed on a regular basis to take account of changes in organisational objectives and practices, technology and service markets. The contestability status of all welfare services should be reassessed at regular intervals.Finally, I would like to thank all committee members and all the personnel of the secretariat for their assistance in the conduct of this important inquiry. I commend the report to the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member for Lilley wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?ML6Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACE—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.5504550412:46:005504Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Australia's trade relationship with India —Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.5M6Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS—This report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on Australia's trade relationship with India will play an important role in maintaining the focus on the importance of India to Australian trade and invest ment. Australia recognised early in this decade that the Australia-India relationship was underdeveloped. Since then, the Australian government has increasingly focused efforts on developing a stronger and more diverse relationship with India. Australia's bilateral relationship with India has expanded significantly, particularly in the areas of trade and investment. In the past six years, bilateral trade has more than doubled. On current growth rates, this trade level is set to double again in the next five years, making India one of Australia's largest export markets. Equally important is Australian investment in India, which has increased dramatically since 1991.Much of the impetus for the expanding bilateral trade relationship has been provided by the gradual restructuring and liberalisation of India's formerly inward looking economy. This restructuring began in earnest after India struck severe balance of payments difficulties in 1991. Since then, a wide range of economic and trade reform measures have been implemented to improve India's economy and to make it globally competitive. Despite its status as a developing country, financial and investment indicators suggest India has huge potential as a market for trade in goods and services. It is the world's largest democracy, with a population of approximately 950 million people, and is growing at two per cent per annum. In 1994 it was rated the fifth largest economy in the world in purchasing power parity terms, although it is estimated that 328 million citizens are living below the poverty line. The size and real disposable income of India's growing middle class is debated. However, by the year 2020 India is expected to be the fourth largest economy in the world.The importance of India as an emerging regional economic and political power, and in particular its growing significance to Australia's commercial interests, cannot be underestimated. The inquiry took a considerable body of evidence during 1997 which stressed the opportunities for Australian trade and investment. Concern was expressed by witnesses that the focus, at the official level, on the significance of the Indian market to Australia would wane in the wake of the successful Australian trade New Horizons promotion at the end of 1996. The committee has made a number of recommendations which will build upon the impetus and success created by the New Horizons promotion, including putting in place an ongoing program of trade visits, to be led at the highest government level.The committee recognises the important and significant role played by Australian business councils, chambers of commerce, cultural organisations and specialised research and studies centres in developing trade and investment links with India. The report deals with the future of the specialised research centres and the need to preserve the teaching of the Hindi language in Australia. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, as the former Chairman of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, especially the subcommittee, for your very hard work and your foresight in promoting the inquiry and hence the report.The committee endorses the efforts of the Australian government in promoting Australia's trade and commercial interests in India. A number of initiatives have been identified which will assist in further developing commercial ties and focusing Australian business on India as a market and the opportunities to be found there. Two issues of significant concern to the committee, which impact on the Australian government's strategy to advance Australia's commercial interests overseas, are the closure of Radio Australia's broadcasts to India and the lack of a mixed credit or soft loan facility.The report addresses the importance of Australia's engagement in a number of regional mechanisms, including the multilateral initiative on regional cooperation and trade facilitation, the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation. The committee stresses the importance of paying more attention to the social and cultural dimensions of the South Asia-Indian Ocean region and utilising the expertise of specialised research centres. (Time expired)12:51:005505Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I would like to begin by thanking the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas), and indeed the former chairman of the trade subcommittee, for their contribution. I especially thank the secretariat. This report, entitled Australia's trade relationship with India —Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond , is a very important report. I was always very pleased that India was the first country I ever visited as part of a delegation of members from Australia back in 1986, and it is very good to see how things have changed. When we are talking about a very important subject like our trade relationship with India, which is a country with which we have over $1 billion in trade surplus, that is, we export more than $1 billion more than we import from India, and bearing in mind that India is likely to grow to the fourth largest economy in the world, it is a matter of regret that it is not possible for members of the subcommittee to actually visit India and see first-hand all the intricacies and complexities you would expect from a democracy of some 950 million people.I want to place on record my congratulations to the people of India. They are a shining example in terms of being a democracy and embracing democratic principles in their country. The report would be more meaningful if members of the committee could not only discuss things conceptually but—just as we have travelled around Australia gathering evidence—go to India and see the other part of the picture so that when we bring down a report like this we can be assured that we are maximising every opportunity for trade that exists in India; and there are quite a number.The report makes some 33 recommendations for improving our trade. I want to place on record my appreciation of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Fischer), has visited India, as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). I think both recognise the importance of Australia's relationship with India. It is a matter of regret that the current Prime Minister (Mr Howard), has yet to visit India. I would hope that, whatever the outcome of the triennial shareholders' meeting soon to be held in Australia, whoever is Prime Minister would have as a high priority visiting India. I think it is very important that we have not only that one-to-one relationship which Australia has secured with so many countries in our region, with good ministerial and departmental contact, but also, as I was saying earlier, a parliament-to-parliament relationship. Regrettably, under the current practices of the House, that is not possible. I hope in the next parliament that may be addressed.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the member for the Northern Territory wish to seek a further opportunity to debate this issue?5506Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.5506550612:55:005506Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, I present the report of the committee, entitled Review of the National Competition Council annual report 1996-97 , together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This is the committee's first review of the National Competition Council annual report. The NCC is one of the key national competition agencies. It advises the Commonwealth, state and territory governments on implementing the national competition reforms as well as assessing their progress. The council is in the unique position of reporting to all those governments as a group and, as such, the committee's review provided a rare opportunity for detailed public scrutiny.The national competition policy was endorsed in April 1995 by the Commonwealth government in cooperation with the state and territory governments operating through COAG. The NCC commenced operation in November of that year. The potential benefits arising from competition reform have been recognised at all levels of government and by all major political parties. Implementing competition policy will impact across the whole economy and right across the community. Governments have not supported the implementation of this policy lightly. The reforms are only implemented to the extent that the benefits outweigh the costs, and it is a very flexible policy.In its report, the committee addressed the following significant matters. First, while the NCC is taking the public education process about content and outcomes of competition reform seriously and collaborating with the state and territory governments in addressing this, more needs to be done. During the past few months it has become apparent that the failure to properly communicate with the broader community on competition policy is prejudicing the implementation of the policy and its benefits. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that all governments and agencies involved in implementing the policy devote resources to ensure community understanding and debate about the contents of the policy and its outcomes.Second, over the next 12 months or so, governments will start getting into the meat of competition policy reform as the big infrastructure reforms such as electricity and gas phase in, and major legislation reviews get under way. While the benefits from competition reform are coming through now, and some are outlined in our report, they will be more significant next year.Some of the benefits already experienced are lower prices for STD and international telephone calls, discounts on local telephone calls, a 22 per cent reduction in real air fares, reductions in electricity costs for Victorians of around 10 per cent, a 40 per cent reduction in freight rates for rail transport between Melbourne and Perth and a 15 per cent reduction in real terms in prices of government trading enterprises. More macroeconomic benefits expected for ordinary Australians include price reductions, lower inflation, more growth, more jobs and uniform protection of consumer and business rights across the whole country.Third, throughout this parliament an ongoing concern of the committee has been where those benefits of competition fall, particularly the distribution between metropolitan and regional areas. This inequity is well recognised by the council and it stressed the need for government policies, such as community service obligations or universal service obligations, to address this. In response to a recommendation in one of the committee's previous reports, the government has agreed to a study of the extent to which the benefits of competition are flowing through to rural and regional Australia. The committee expects that the results of that study will have a significant impact on all government policies in regional Australia.Fourth, an issue of particular concern to rural and regional Australia is their postal service and the outcome of the NCC's national review of Australia Post. The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) will be making an announcement on that review shortly. Fifth, the committee also examined the assessment process and the associated competition payments of which some $217 million is involved in 1998-99 and more in following years.Many other matters were discussed by the committee and I will come back to that later. I would like to thank the NCC and our secretariat staff, particularly Bev Forbes, Chris Paterson and all the members of the committee. (Time expired)12:59:005507Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—As clearly elucidated by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), who has done a fine job in chairing the committee, the underpinning principles of the competition policy would be that the consumer would benefit from a more efficient economy and that the inefficient aspects of the Australian economy were preventing it from functioning at its full potential, thereby restricting both economic and employment growth and the role of international competitiveness. With the last government, I hear our manufacturing industry was already facing stiff competition from imports as a consequence, primarily, of the phase down in protection. Actual competition policy was supposed to put similar pressure on other sectors of the economy to lift their performance. That was notably in the area of government business enterprises. It started out basically with the intention of giving people cheaper services, notably in the area of electricity and gas which, as the member for Wannon has said, is still to be phased in.I am somewhat concerned that the reasonable objectives of the competition policy may have been dominated by what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) recently described as a `bureaucratic and ideological agenda'. I see the role of the committee to in part check this, and I think it has done quite a serviceable job in doing just that as it has posed many pertinent questions to council representatives.I am hopeful that the committee will continue to examine what may best be described as the oddities of the national competition policy process. Some of those might include pressure from the NCC to increase competition in the casino sector, the implication being that a state must have zero or two or more casinos to meet NCP requirements. The fact, for example, is that, in New South Wales in the stilled regulated milk market, milk is 10c per litre cheaper than milk in states with deregulated milk markets. That is an area open for analysis, as is the continuous threat to the newsagency sector over current marketing arrangements. Furthermore, with pressure in South Australia to deregulate Sunday shopping in Adelaide, despite there being no community push for such changes, one has to ask—and I am sure the committee will on a continuing basis—what this has to do with the whole notion of international competitiveness.These are the types of questions which are pertinent and relevant and are on the minds of many of us on the committee. I am sure they will make for interesting responses as we continue to meet with the NCC. We are grateful for the help of the secretariat and in particular Bev Forbes, whom the chair has cited, for her outstanding work. We commend her for her role in facilitating what has been and will continue to be a most interesting and productive parliament working with this committee on matters of national importance, such as national competition policy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?8H4Wilton, Greg, MPMr HAWKER—(Wannon)—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this day, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.5508550813:04:005508Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Improving but. . . : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights , together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—Given the limited time, I would start by expressing the committee's thanks to the committee secretary, Catherine Cornish, for an outstanding job, together with her support staff of Cliff Lawson, Julia Morris and Peter Ratas. As members are aware, Australia's place in the Asia-Pacific region and its attitude to its neighbours in the region have come under particular scrutiny in recent times. Australia has a strong tradition in the promotion and protection of human rights, but recently its credibility has come under the spotlight. We are also mindful that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.This report of the committee is timely, therefore, for its examination of a number of issues. These issues include the place of human rights and the relations between Australia and our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region; the link between observants of human rights and security and stability, a matter which has been brought into sharp focus in the wake of the Asian economic crisis; the acceptance and impact of United Nations human rights treaties; and the roles played by government and non-government organisations in dialogue and human rights.In the course of the inquiry, the committee was reminded of the very positive contribution made by Australia to regional dialogue on human rights, especially through the funding of national human rights institutions. A case in point is the recent contribution of $2 million by Australia to assist the Indonesian human rights commission, as well as the training and support provided to the Indonesian commission by Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As members are aware, the Indonesian commission has played a crucial role in the recent crisis in Indonesia.Through its work on both bilateral and multilateral bases, Australia has maintained strong support for human rights. However, some submissions made to the committee suggest that there has been a decline in Australia's role as human rights advocate over the last decade or so. The committee did not make such a finding but it agrees with those who say that there is room for improvement in Australia's role in the region. There will always be room to improve our effectiveness in human rights, to speak up more frequently for those who are not in a position to speak for themselves and to be more persuasive when we make representations on their behalf.A number of the measures which would make Australia's role in human rights more effective were considered by the committee. I would like to outline three of these briefly. The first would be an increased emphasis on human rights by AusAID in its overseas aid program. This might include programs in human rights education for aid recipients. The second would involve support for proposals that mark the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education and the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One proposal made to the committee which has merit is the development of a national committee for human rights education. The third would involve appointment of a human rights ambassador, with responsibility for development of policy and programs that serve to promote and protect human rights. Such an appointment would serve as a focal point for the pursuit of human rights issues. It could also play a coordinating role and overcome one of the difficulties our federal system of government poses for human rights in this country: the need to coordinate with different levels of government.Without a better foundation in terms of human rights education in the community and commitment to human rights issues such that government is encouraged to seize each opportunity that is presented during its dialogue around the region, Australia cannot hope to be a more effective advocate for human rights. I commend the report to the House.13:08:005509Jones, Barry, MPMr BARRY JONESKH4LalorALP00—Improving but. . . : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights is a valuable resource document, and I hope it will be widely read. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to members of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, particularly the chair, Peter Nugent, the deputy chair, Colin Hollis and the secretary, Catherine Cornish.Australia may be undergoing a radical rethinking about its relationship with the Asia-Pacific region and, at a time when economic issues tend to crowd out all others, it is essential that Australia reaffirm its commitment to human rights and humane values.Much of the report deals with the concept of `so-called Asian values'—the argument, often expressed vehemently by Lee Kwan Yew and Dr Mahathir, that there is a gap between the Western concept of human rights, seen as individualistic, and `Asian values', seen as collective, putting more emphasis on social stability than on, for example, freedom of speech. Lee's approach combines Confucian philosophy, the puritan work ethic and a Hobbesian pessimism about human nature.In the context of the current political debate in Australia, it is essential that we do not demonise Asia, and it is also important that we do not make exaggerated use of terms such as `Asian values' which create the illusion that the geographical term `Asia' or `Asia-Pacific' reflects a uniformity of approach.One of the more baffling limitations of the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has been her misguided belief that, to Australia's north, there is a vast homogenous group of people called `Asians', they come from a country called Asia, they speak a language called Asian, they share a common culture called Asian and they have a monolithic approach on all issues—including making sure that all Australian street signs are written in Asian. Merely to set out the proposition indicates its absurdity—and, if I can make the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mrs Sullivan) laugh, I must be doing well.But it is true that some states in Asia and South-East Asia are extremely hostile to criticism by Australia and other Western countries of their use of the death penalty, the imposition of censorship, the crushing of dissent, their apparent indifference to child labour, and their refusal to grant equal rights to women. The suggestion that execution is appropriate for people who live in countries in Asia but not for Europeans is a disturbing demonstration of a double standard—but not originating from us.I was pleased to hear President Clinton, in his strong speech in Beijing on human rights, protesting about Tiananmen Square and urging that priority must be given to expression of democratic values. President Jiang Zemin made a predictable defence on the basis of stability. But it was a step forward that the exchange was televised.The report reaffirms Australia's concerns about the use of the death penalty in the region. The US, with whom Australia has such close ties, is a worrying anomaly on the death penalty, in striking contrast to Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and in the production of instruments of torture.I draw the House's attention to a deeply disturbing article in the New York Review of Books, 24 April 1997, entitled `Cruel & Unusual Punishment' by William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International. In my innocence, I had not grasped that in 1994, under the Clinton administration, the US Commerce Department created a separate export licensing category for `specially designed implements of torture', the presumption being that any manufacturer honest enough to call a torture instrument a torture instrument would thereby be assured of being denied a licence. Schulz writes:Thumbscrews, blackjacks and electronic weapons can be shipped generally under the category of general merchandise to NATO countries (including Turkey), Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Nor has the [US] government required those who order and use such equipment to sign certificates that it would not be re-exported.The government must look into this.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time for statements on this report has concluded. Does the honourable member for Aston wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?5510Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills5511r5515511Bill presented by Mrs Gallus.13:13:005511Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—The purpose of the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998 is to entrench in legislation the existing administrative curfew at Adelaide airport. I have introduced this bill with the concurrence of the Howard government, on behalf of the residents in the suburbs surrounding Adelaide airport in my electorate of Hindmarsh.The current administrative curfew has no legal standing. This bill will change that and give security to the residents who live near Adelaide airport. At present there is no guarantee that permission will not be given to large aircraft to fly into Adelaide when residents are trying to sleep at night. This legislation provides that guarantee.Twenty-thousand Adelaide airport residents live next to the airport. It is incumbent on any government to ensure that, if they have allowed airports and houses to exist near each other, the residents must be protected from excessive noise. I have always maintained that it is unacceptable for residents to be woken during the night by aircraft noise. It is a fundamental right that people should be able to get a proper night's sleep; residents near an airport do not forfeit this right.Under existing administrative arrangements, the minister has total discretion to grant a request by any air carrier to access the airport any time during curfew hours. Once this present legislation is in place, the minister will no longer have this discretion.The current administrative arrangement designates the curfew from 11.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. However, exceptions have already been made and, as this bill seeks to reflect the current situation at Adelaide airport, these exemptions will remain. In 1993 the then Labor state and federal governments decided to allow exemption within the shoulder hours of the curfew for international passenger aircraft to come in over the sea. Since then such flights have been allowed to come in over land in poor meteorological conditions.The legislation makes it clear that large domestic passenger aircraft do not have access to the curfew shoulder hours of 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. to midnight, except in emergencies and other extraordinary situations. International passenger aircraft that have access to the curfew shoulder hours of 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. to midnight must be the new generation of quieter jets; must not use reverse thrust greater than idle; and must come in over the sea unless meteorological conditions make the alternatives unsafe. This legislation strengthens the existing conditions so that, if a permitted international passenger aircraft comes in over the city in the curfew shoulder hours, its pilot will be required to document why it was necessary. It is well known that carriers and pilots dislike paperwork, and the requirement to document reasons for a different approach will effectively stop aircraft coming in over the land unless there are compelling reasons to do so.Currently five international passenger flights per week are allowed into Adelaide airport during the curfew shoulder hours. The regulations limiting the number of international flights that can access Adelaide airport during the shoulder hours of the curfew will be published following the Governor-General's assent to the bill and will limit the number of flights to the current number of five.As exists at present, freight and passenger aircraft below 34,000 kilograms will be able to use Adelaide airport during curfew hours. For heavy freight aircraft the bill contains two exemptions. This is to allow the continuation of the flights by the BAe146 and DC9 aircraft which currently use Adelaide airport during the curfew. The number of flights by heavy freight aircraft in the curfew period will be restricted by the legislation to eight flights per week, as is the present situation. Further, the number of flights by DC9 aircraft during curfew hours is limited to four, and there is a total exclusion of movements of B727 aircraft during curfew hours.This legislation could not have been brought forward without the support of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), and I wish to express my gratitude for his assistance in this matter. On behalf of all residents affected by noise at Adelaide airport, I wish to express their gratitude to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) for his assistance. I would also like to acknowledge that the state government has played a constructive role in getting the curfew legislated. After initial objections to a legislated curfew, Premier John Olsen has supported the bill in the interests of the health and quality of life of residents who live near the airport. While a legislative curfew will place some restriction on the owners of the airport, they have recognised the need for the curfew and, in the interests of good relations with their neighbours, have supported the placing of the curfew in legislation. I commend the bill to the House. I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum.Leave granted.Bill read a first time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business5512551213:19:005512Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I move:That this House:(1) notes with concern the plight of Australian pork producers;(2) calls for an inquiry into the structures, marketing, domestic pricing and exporting of pork;(3) draws the attention of government to the need for an efficient and effective dedicated pork abattoir and processing sector; and(4) in commending the Government for industry aid given thus far, seeks access to sustenance and carry-on finance for farmers experiencing economic hardship during this period of adjustment.)Let me be blunt: I do not accept the conventional wisdom on the pork industry. By `conventional wisdom' I mean that which holds that there is nothing government can do to ease the plight of pork producers without damaging Australia's interests. As a cog in the wheel that helped form the very successful Monto Pork Enterprises, a cooperative in Monto near Bundaberg in my electorate, and having followed it closely since, I have a very good understanding of the pork industry and the problems facing it.Clearly, there is much more that can be done to help producers in this industry. The first step we must take is to place on record in this parliament our genuine concern for ordinary Australians at a time of immense difficulty for their industry. That is the first point of our motion. In commending the government for its assistance to the industry thus far—a total of $19 million—I think it is a good start but there must be a greater focus on people not just on exports. I believe we can go a lot further. Direct financial assistance to pork producers is an absolute necessity. That can be delivered under the rural adjustment scheme—and I do not accept the RASAC recommendation—or under a special program that could be dubbed the pork industry assistance package. I do not agree that this would create a precedent.The pork industry differs from other rural enterprises in that you prepare a beast for a particular window of opportunity and, if you miss that window of opportunity, you cannot put the animal in the back paddock for six or 12 months, as might be the case with other livestock. You either hit the market during the window of opportunity or you might as well start shooting the pigs, because feed bills are enormous and, once a piggery starts to slide, the momentum gathers quickly. The banks are not patient. Too many families have invested substantial amounts of money, sometimes hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. Their futures, livelihoods, family security and the education of their children are all under immediate threat. This is not some idle thing. The end of the financial year is tomorrow.It staggers me that we accept blithely on both sides of the House that all male average weekly earnings translated into an annual figure come to $37,000, but we expect Australian farmers to survive on $11,000 or $12,000 a year. What makes it even worse is when you expect people in an industry like this in a negative income circumstance to be offered no aid at all. I think that has to be reversed. That is very much the essence of the fourth point of my motion. It is well and good to ask people to adopt world's best practice, as Monto producers have, and it is well and good to ask them to perform a highwire act competing on a level playing field with the rest of the world, but what people in this country expect is that there will be a safety net, especially when an industry is doing the right thing and is knocked off its perch because of factors beyond its control.The pork industry is slowly shrugging off its role as a domestic supplier and is nearly ready to join the throng of successful Australian exporters. In fact, it has done so quite successfully with small quantities. There is a major impediment to this, and that is the lack of capacity and efficiency and standards in our abattoir and processing sector. Government needs to kick-start this sector of the industry urgently if exports are to be the hope of the pork industry and we are to compete effectively on the world stage. It may be that the whole structure of the industry needs to be changed to reflect the 3,300 producers of 1998, not the 49,000 of 1960.A review with recommendations in this regard would be invaluable in mapping the future of the industry. I do not mean an inquiry that drags on for a year or more but something over a matter of months. It is apparent, when farmers are receiving $1.40 a kilogram and the end product appears on the supermarket shelves at $14 a kilogram, that the retail sector needs close scrutiny. For that reason I think it is timely and I call for the ACCC to be directed to look closely at the retail sector to ensure there is no opportunistic profiteering or predatory pricing.Monto Pork Enterprise producers, who met with the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on Thursday night with me in Kingaroy, and coming from Biloela, Monto and the Burnett, have been actively looking at positive solutions throughout this difficult time for their industry, unlike some industry members. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?VT4REIDMr Reid—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:24:005513Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—It is important that the government support this private member's motion as there are some real concerns out in the pork producing regional areas. I am assuming it is pork the honourable member from Hinkler (Mr Neville) was talking about. In the motion I received mixed messages on pork and then pickled pork that he was perhaps talking about.I agree with the general terms of the review of the industry, provided that it can take place quickly. Our industry in Tasmania is already in its death throes. Over the weekend we were advised that the 25-year-old pig cooperative was closed in Tasmania with the loss of at least six jobs. The reason given was the dramatic decrease of market share in recent years. Tasmania's pig herd carried 10,000 sows over 10 years ago. At the start of this year there were still 2,500 sows in the state, but that number is expected to drop by another 750 by the end of the year. We are looking at a situation where about one-third of the industry in Tasmania has gone broke this year.Pork producers in Tasmania believe that the reason behind this demise is subsidised pork imports from Canada at rock bottom prices. This in turn has pushed Victorian pig meat onto the Tasmanian markets at prices that local growers cannot match. The other problem with the Tasmanian situation is that there are fewer butchers and smaller processors, with the majority of meat being handled by the supermarket chains and with the same number of wholesalers chasing the markets.The part of the motion I cannot agree with is that the government has dealt with this issue satisfactorily. Some may remember that, at the end of 1995, the then Labor government had just about signed off on labelling legislation and looked at really developing this industry. The current government came along and dismantled everything that we had done. This government came in too late. It put in some aid. It really was a bit of a bandaid for this industry when it should have been dealing with the industry in a better and more substantial way. They did not really deal with the problem until it was too late.We cannot, nor should we, simplify this issue by merely saying that bringing back tariffs will solve the problem, that we should protect our industry at the expense of exports. If we did, Australia would not survive economically; we would become a mendicant country to the World Bank. But, on the other hand, nor do we have to be at the very forefront of removing trade barriers. Australia should work within its means under the World Trade Organisation. Australia has the ability to set its own barriers against others where other countries are setting theirs. We do not have to be out there in front leading the charge. And we should do that in a positive way.We have also to be careful about how we trade off, for example, beef against pork or a pristine water environment against imported salmon. Those sorts of issues worry me greatly, and I think I have spoken of them before, where smaller industries and fledgling industries, especially in regions, start to get pushed down because trade ministers—and I am not having a go at our Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) at the moment—may not have the big industries on their agenda when they are talking to their counterparts in other parts of the world. Nor may our negotiators when they are in negotiations dealing with the export industries. There are hundreds of examples which one could put up in relation to that.We have to be conscious of dumping and the health risks to our own industries. Trade should not be detrimental to the country. However, we do have to become more competitive. We have to help our producers become better. Our growers need to get together and set their goals for the industry. We need to have strategies in place to deal with wholesalers and the bigger players in the industries so that the individual grower can get top price for their best meat regardless of whom they sell it to.Now that this has been done, it is best left to the growers and their representative organisations. Parliamentarians are not farmers, although one or two may be ex-farmers. It is not our role to set the vision; our role is to help our constituents achieve their goals. The politicians can help facilitate, help raise the funds for research, help the ongoing development of the market and look to help the export situation, but it is up the industry to pull itself up by its bootstraps. (Time expired)13:29:005514Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—I wish to support the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Neville). I understand the motion will also be supported by the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wakelin). I also want to register the strong interest of my colleagues the member for Ballarat (Mr Ronaldson) and the member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey) in this motion also, because they have pork industry interests in their own electorates, as I do in the seat of Bendigo.The pork industry has a very prominent place in the Bendigo electorate. We have Bunge industries, which runs a big production facility in the area. We also have Castle Bacon at Castlemaine, and Ridley, the stock food providers for most of north central Victoria, providing rations to the pork and poultry industries. We also have a very high-tech company called Ausvac which provides vaccine for the pork industry. It is very prominent not only in the national pork industry but also in international terms in providing vaccines for the protection of the pork industry. No doubt there are also a large number of pork producers in Bendigo, Ballarat and McEwen. At the moment, the industry certainly is in desperate trouble.I agree wholeheartedly with the honourable member for Hinkler's call for an inquiry into the structures, the marketing, the domestic pricing and the exporting of pork. It would appear from the work I have done and discussions I have had with the Pork Council of Australia that there are a number of problems in the pork industry, not all of which relate to the importation of pork. Some of them may well be to do with the marketing and exporting of pork, and the lack of an adequate export market. I understand that they are making strenuous efforts to develop their export markets into countries like Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Korea. I encourage them in this. I think it helps the industry to have not only sound domestic production and a sound market but also a very vigorous export market.The interesting part is that a number of piggeries in my electorate are expanding. The City of Greater Bendigo recently approved an expansion of one piggery at Bagshot from 4,800 to 7,200 pigs. Also, in Loddon Shire, just to the north of me, the council has just approved a new piggery holding 2,500 pigs. So there are some different signals coming from the industry. Some are expanding and others are feeling enormous pressure. I can understand Mr Neville's comments about the family farm, particularly if people are trying to produce pork and run smaller piggeries with the sort of pressure they are under at this time.There are a number of factors. It simply does not just relate to pork being imported. The government is recognising the difficulties of the pork industry. Back in November 1979 we implemented a package of $10 million. That was followed recently by a further $9 million of support into the pork industry. As the member for Hinkler indicated, this can be done under the rural adjustment scheme but I would like to say, particularly to the ministers and to the government, that we should move ahead with this inquiry, do it quickly and find out what the reasons are behind the difficulties being experienced by the pork industry.It is a very important industry for a wide area of Australia, not only my electorate—and I am speaking about that today. Certainly it covers a lot of different areas. My electorate is quite different from that of the member for Grey, who is going to follow me shortly. No doubt, many grain growing areas see the production of pork as a very good adjunct to their activities in the grain industry. This is important but it is particularly important that the export markets be developed in the future. (Time expired)13:34:005515Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Just over 2½ years ago the Australian Labor Party was comprehensively defeated at a federal election. There is no doubt in my mind that the single greatest contributor to that defeat was change fatigue. In many ways the Australian community has experienced more change over the last 15 years than it did in the 30-year period prior to that. Technological change, better and more efficient transport, and the mobility of international capital have thrust change upon us. As a nation we have had two choices: we could adapt to change and position ourselves to secure the maximum possible benefit or we could resist change, isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and deny our export industries opportunities and the jobs that go with them.Of course, option one was never an option at all. The real challenge for government over that period has been to manage that change effectively and efficiently to make sure that as a nation we derive the maximum possible benefit from change. Also, we have needed to ensure the pace of change was correct and that those who were potentially adversely impacted upon by that change were taken care of. In the modern economy, governments have few of the traditional macro-economic tools available to them. Fiscal policy and the discipline placed upon it by a more internationalised economy give us very little room to move. The government basically has jettisoned wages policy with the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act, and monetary policy is done pretty well independently by the Reserve Bank.So the government report card in the future, as has been the case in the last 10 years, will feature that government's ability to manage change. I think the Hawke-Keating government managed change pretty well. It got a few things wrong; indeed, it got plenty of things wrong. That demonstrates best why the electorate shifted so markedly at the last federal election. They were looking for something better but, in my view, they found something worse. That best explains the rise of One Nation. People are still concerned about their security and the level of that concern can best be found in the pork industry at the moment.On that basis I support the motion put forward by the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville), but like the member for Lyons (Mr Adams) I think a much more aggressive approach can be taken. I think we as a nation should be invoking every opportunity available to us under the GATT rules to take the maximum possible advantage of this new internationalisation. Out there in the electorate, `globalisation' is a dirty word. Governments need to sell change better, explain themselves better and at the international negotiation table be much tougher.As with chicken meat imports, where we had available to us legitimate quarantine rules to allow us to proceed cautiously, in the pork industry we have legitimate opportunities to put in place temporary tariffs to assist this industry. This option must be taken. It is no good telling pork producers that they must just wear it on the chin for the benefit of another industry; they need to be told why they have to take their produce to the market and sell it for less than what it costs them to produce it. Governments must be far more aggressive. Pork producers, chicken producers and so many others deserve nothing less.Sure I support the member for Hinkler's motion, but it does not go far enough. It is time the government took the issue on, listened to what people were saying in the electorate and went to that negotiation table with a far more aggressive approach. If it is not prepared to do that, I can promise that we will see again the shift we saw in the electorate at the last election but next time the shift will be back the other way, to the Australian Labor Party. I am confident of that because the Labor Party will be offering the only alternative available to the Australian electorate. (Time expired)13:40:005516Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—There are very few things in life that are more frustrating and depressing than selling a product below the cost of production. The previous speaker, the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), spoke about change fatigue. I went into the pig industry in a very modest way in 1970. The number of sows in the industry peaked at 460,000 and three years later, in 1975, the number had dropped to just under 311,000. So in three years when I was in the pig industry the number of sows actually fell by around a third.That was a very dramatic time. Too many times have I sent off the property mutton, prime young hogget and lambs for below the cost of production. It is never an easy time. So I can express a very genuine concern for those families that are in the pork industry that are going through these times now.I want to bring to the discussion the actual figures for import, export, domestic consumption and domestic production. My understanding is that domestic production currently is around 350,000 tonnes. In the last 12 months we have seen something like a 20,000-tonne decline in domestic consumption. If you look at the import-export amount, you will see that exports have actually doubled from April 1996 to April 1998—from about 6,500 tonnes up to in excess of 13,000 tonnes. At the same time imports—I understand predominantly from Canada—have gone from something like 4,000 tonnes in May 1996 to 9,500 tonnes in May 1998. So we have about three or four per cent of that import component of the total domestic consumption at the same time as we have doubled the amount in exports. I think it is quite important that we get those facts on the table.South Australia is doubly affected by these very serious downturns in that, as I understand it, there is not a very strong processing industry there. I know that the South Australian government is absolutely determined to see a major development in that area and I look forward to that coming on-stream. The government has been caught with this very difficult situation and I do not underestimate the difficulty. It has done all that it can do as far as the labelling laws go—and I understand they are in the Senate. I can only endorse the comments of the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) on the ACCC. Have we got to the stage in this country where certain operators are enjoying, if not monopoly practices, certainly practices which give a market dominance which may not be giving people a fair go?Another issue that has not been touched on in this discussion is the degree of protection which may be available to our importers. I always want to be thoroughly reassured— more reassured than I am currently—that those who export into our country, importers, are genuinely playing the game. I agree with the previous speaker that we have to be absolutely reassured that there is a genuine no protection, no subsidy operation for those people who want to export into our country.In conclusion, I believe we should be very sympathetic to our pig producers at a very difficult time and at the very least we should be looking at our income support program to see whether, through the state agencies, that can be given to those people, particularly if the majority of their income is coming from the pig industry, so they can be given greater sustenance.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members551755175517Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Last Friday, I attended a meeting in my electorate of Greenway of the Doonside Estate Resident Safety and Action Coalition. The coalition is devoted to ensuring a good quality of life for residents of the area. The report by the President, Warren Hardy, to this meeting indicated the role of the coalition. Reference was made to the police department's role in conducting a safety audit and the response to the safety house program, the efforts of the Department of Housing in locating areas for the introduction of parks and gardens where children and parents can spend some time and the Blacktown Council's role in a local clean-up campaign. This is a community project with the Blacktown Council providing equipment such as lawn-mowers to enable the residents to complete the project.The coalition aims to set up four working parties to address the various projects that have been identified as areas of concern to the Doonside community. These four working parties relate to the community safety audit, the community pride program, the safety house program and the neighbourhood watch program.I would like to congratulate the President, Warren Hardy, the Secretary, Val Moorehouse, and the DERSAC committee on the wonderful work they are performing on behalf of the residents of Doonside.It is intended that the community safety audit will have representatives from the police, housing, council and Integral Energy. There will also be two representatives from DERSAC and one from the general public. The aim of this audit is to identify all the problem areas around Doonside and establish who is responsible for having these problems solved. The community pride program has been set up to increase community pride within the Doonside Estate. (Time expired)55175517Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I spoke in private members business about Monto Pork Enterprises, which is actively and positively looking for solutions in the pork industry. Monto Pork Enterprises has a very rational and sensible way of going about things, acknowledging that imports of pork are not the starting and ending point of the problems, as some continue to imply. As I said, their submission to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on Thursday night shows the depth of their understanding and their positive outlook.This is a complex issue and one that has suffered at the hands of some sections of the media and would-be political operatives who, over recent weeks, have cruelly offered up unworkable and simplistic solutions, like a return to protectionism, which could never solve the problem.I do not wish this parliament to be seen as being unresponsive to the needs of these people. These are decent, ordinary Australians who need help. I repeat what I said: first we need to look at their circumstances, then we need to look at an inquiry into the structures of the industry. We also need to look at aid for these people, and we need to look at the abattoir sector. Having done all these things, we can then hold out some hope for this industry and its future.55185518Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—You often hear people say that they remember where they were when JFK was assassinated, when Gough Whitlam was sacked or, indeed, when Diana Spencer was fatally injured, but historians or those with an interest in industrial relations remember other things. They remember certain industrial disputes. They remember certain case law like the Engineers case, the Boilermakers case and the Harvester case.This Wednesday will be a day well remembered in the minds of those with an interest in industrial relations. It will certainly be high in the minds of those who rely on a strong award system to protect their working rights, wages and conditions. This Wednesday is, of course, the day on which the Workplace Relations Act and the award simplification process of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, the member for Flinders (Mr Reith), will come into effect. From that day on, their rights will be reduced to some 20 allowable matters, meaning that some important hard-fought for conditions will be lost, potentially for ever.My message to the community and to the electorate is this: do not think that only those who are members of the trade union movement will be affected. This will affect all Australians—union members or non-union members. (Time expired)55185518Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The suburb of Annerley has an interesting history which may not be apparent to many of its contemporary residents. Known often as the Stephens district, Annerley was the home of Vince Gair, the former Queensland Premier and senator. There is the magnificent Mary Immaculate Catholic Church and the Junction Park State School, which is now 110 years old. In fact, my 91-year-old grandfather, Percy, was once a student there. Annerley has many historic residences. The grand views along Cracknell and other roads are first rate.Darling Downs trade has always travelled through Annerley along Ipswich Road, though heavy truck traffic is now a major local concern. Federal black spots funding is fixing one crisis area near Louis Street.The Commonwealth funding of the new buildings at the Princess Alexandra Hospital means local health services are on the improve. So is the general amenity of the Junction shopping strip. Last Saturday morning, many locals turned out, despite the rain, to celebrate work completed. The Annerley Stephens Community Centre in Waldheim Street is fast becoming a focal point for the regeneration of Annerley.Newer residents to the area include a sizeable community from Africa. The recent cultural day combined African and Latin American efforts and showcased a splendid range of Sudanese arts and crafts, Ethiopian coffee and latin music, amongst other things.The major struggle all city communities have is getting to know each other and sharing the burdens and successes within an area. The local community are working on modern problems like rising crime rates.I have urged the community centre to submit for funding under the Federation Fund so that a definitive history and a walk around the historic sites of Annerley are properly recorded for generations to come. I will continue to do my part to bring residents together and build an even better Annerley.55185518Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My statement relates to the disturbing new evidence of the poor outlook for jobs in Australia. A comprehensive survey of 3,000 businesses and their expectations has been carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the results were reported at length in the weekend newspapers. They show that businesses expect to cut full-time employment by almost one percentage point in the September quarter.The expected falls in jobs in both the short and medium term are the biggest in nearly four years. The worst outlook is, unfortunately, amongst small business. This is the sector that the government keeps saying it wants to help, but in fact the government keeps making it harder for small business.Small business is expecting full-time jobs to fall by 1.2 per cent. The reason they have no confidence in their short- and medium-term capacity to employ Australians is that this government is devoid of leadership. It has no vision or forward looking policy to create jobs. Instead of acting to generate jobs, the government is hitting employers with new job taxes in the form of charges for employment services.Just look at the statement by the New South Wales Hospitality Association today. The association objects to the fact that these charges, these new taxes, are being imposed upon employers who have historically operated very much in the small business sector to create jobs and, in so doing, seek employment services from the government to assist in employing a lot of these people in small business. I also note that a lot of them have historically been women looking for part-time work of a permanent nature to assist in bringing up their families.The government is to be condemned. The outlook on the employment front is bleak. It is about time the government withdrew the new taxes and employment charges. (Time expired)55195519Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I wish to bring to the attention of the House the model criminal code project, which includes a discussion paper proposing harsher penalties for certain offences resulting in death. Earlier this year I made public my concern about the lenient sentences given to joy-riders, especially those joy-riders who injure and cause death. The paper released last week by the Minister for Justice, Senator Amanda Vanstone—I hold a copy aloft—proposes greater consistency in penalties across the country and suggests improvements to laws relating to causing death by dangerous driving. In my state of Western Australia, penalties for dangerous driving range from four years to 20 years.The public discussion paper proposes increasing penalties to a maximum of 25 years under the proposed `Dangerous Conduct Causing Death' provision. In Western Australia, I know there is the very strong sentiment that penalties for joy-riders, particularly joy-riders who cause injury and death, are not strong enough. Being a state government matter, I have already met with and my written to my state government colleagues, including the state Minister for Justice, urging them to listen to the public opinion about matching sentences to the crime. So I am particularly pleased to see the federal government now taking an active role in the matter of strengthening sentences and penalties.It is time something serious was done to stop these joy-riders getting away with putting people's lives at greater risk. These joy-riders go out with the knowledge that they will knock someone over or kill them and that anyone who gets in their way will be dealt with in such a manner. Given the high speeds at which they drive and the risks they take, my constituents in Swan, who rate crime as a matter highest in their importance, will be happy to see the federal government working with state and territory governments. (Time expired)55195519McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I rise today to congratulate the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, who was a former Liberal Party member of the New South Wales Legislative Council. Helen Sham-Ho today resigned from the Liberal Party. The reason she resigned was the control of the Liberal Party by the One Nation Party.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Rubbish! She resigned because they wouldn't make her President of the Legislative Council.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—The Alexander Downer doll over here says, `Rubbish'. In her letter of resignation she says:My decision has been taken after careful consideration and following advice by certain members of the Liberal Party that my candidature for the presidency of the Legislative Council cannot be supported by the Liberal Party because it would offend One Nation party supporters.This is a woman who has given her life to the Liberal Party. She has been driven out of the Liberal Party, by the One Nation supporters in the Liberal Party. Helen Sham-Ho should be congratulated.55205520Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—Last Friday, 26 June, was a celebration of International Day in the Fight Against Drug Abuse. Also in the Hunter there was the 1998 NXFM-Quit Rock Eisteddfod Challenge. The rock eisteddfod challenge is a highly successful drug prevention and general education vehicle in the form of a performing arts competition between secondary schools whereby drug prevention messages can be delivered to youth, parents, teachers, schools and communities at large in a credible youth cultural environment. The rock eisteddfod challenge aims to promote healthy, safe, responsible attitudes and behaviour, and build resistance to influences that encourage substance abuse. I must congratulate Peter Sjoquist, the executive producer, and Susan Eldridge for putting it all together.I am pleased to announce that one of the schools in my electorate, All Saints College, St Peter campus, won the night.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—My old school!LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—It is the former school of the member for Hunter. Also well represented were All Saints College, St Joseph's campus, Bulahdelah Central School in their first time in the event, Francis Greenway School and the Irrawang High School. The second prize went to Toronto High and the third to Waratah High. The support given by the federal government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and through the Department of Youth Affairs has added to this cause and is a great effort to help stamp out drug abuse through our young teenagers.55205520Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—As a former student of Edithvale Primary School, I was thrilled recently to be invited back to the school by current principal Peter Boyes to present a bicycle to the winner of the spellathon. As a former spellathon champion some 30 years ago, it was a great pleasure for me to make a small contribution to the winner of the spellathon raffle, young Christopher Soleman. What made it so enlightening for me was not so much a return to my old school, or the jokes told at the school by the principle, Peter Boyes, or the calibre or the good behaviour of the students, but rather the forum in which the bike was presented to the winner. It was not presented in front of an assembly. Being an innovative school, it was presented in the school's own TV studio and the presentation was beamed live to every classroom.The state school in Victoria has its own studio, its own floor manager, its own broadcasters, its own lighting technicians, all of whom come on a rostered basis from the student population and all of whom have their confidence and self-esteem enhanced by the opportunity to appear on what is not only an internally beamed school TV program but one which they have an arrangement with Optus Vision to televise on a regular basis. It is all to the credit of teacher Perry Kick, someone I have known for 40 years, who has been seconded to Optus vision to continue his good work. (Time expired)55205520Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I should bring to the attention of the House that I intend to move in this House at a later date an amendment to the Sydney Airport (Demand Management) Act 1997. The amendment I intend to move will lift the cap on aircraft movements at Sydney airport from 80 per hour to 120 per hour. Since I decided to stand for election for the seat of Lindsay I have sought a win-win solution for the people of both western Sydney and the inner city. It is now apparent to me that many people of the inner city and their representatives in this House have a one-eyed view of aircraft noise. Their solution to stick it in the backyard of western Sydney. A solution that I have proposed many times is Sydney Offshore. It is technologically advanced and certainly, given time, is a very viable project.The noise of the aircraft is decreasing over time. By giving Sydney airport a longer life expectancy we will have time for the technology to solve the problems of Sydney's aircraft noise without dumping it in western Sydney's backyard. I notice that the members for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) and Chifley (Mr Price) supported that amendment to give relief to the inner city residents, but in time it seems that they have forgotten the problems of the residents of western Sydney. Looking after my own constituency, I am finding a solution with Sydney Offshore. It is an engineering marvel. It is something that really can be done and provides a win-win solution both for the residents of the inner city and the residents of my seat in western Sydney.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice552155215521Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho MLC has resigned from the Liberal Party and is contesting the presidency of the New South Wales Legislative Council because:Certain members of the Liberal Party have advised that my candidature cannot be supported by the Liberal Party because it would offend One Nation supporters.Are you aware that she is further concerned that these. . . remarks follow the debacle in Queensland where Liberal preferences elected One Nation candidates?Are you further aware that she says:Only the ALP has shown it truly believes in equality for all Australians.Will you now, in the light of this action, finally determine that all Liberal Party divisions and the National Party follow Labor's lead and put One Nation last?5521Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of the remarks made by Mrs Sham-Ho. It is a very strange stance to take, given that only last Friday night the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party to which Mrs Sham-Ho belongs unanimously resolved to place One Nation last on every how-to-vote card in the forthcoming federal election.Any suggestion that Mrs Sham-Ho would not have been chosen as the opposition's candidate for the vacant speakership in New South Wales on account of the attitude of another party, I find quite astonishing. Of course, it is entirely a matter for the New South Wales parliamentary party. It is not a matter on which I have been consulted or would expect to be consulted or indeed wish to be consulted. It is a vacancy which, as everybody knows, arose rather suddenly and unexpectedly.In the brief time that I have had to look at the news reports and assess the situation, I think the principal reason Mrs Sham-Ho has resigned and is contesting the position from the cross benches is that she thinks she has a better chance of winning through doing that. It is rather disappointing, even verging on the ungracious, for somebody who has had great loyalty from the Liberal Party for a long period of time to seek to raise the matters that she has raised.I do not think for a moment that the allegations she has made have any foundation at all. I quite believe that the New South Wales coalition has chosen somebody else as its candidate and that is the reason she has resigned—and there is no other reason.55215521Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of those countries that apply a wholesale sales tax and the reason why developed countries do not impose such a tax?5521Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for this question and I would refer him to the Coopers & Lybrand study, A survey of consumption tax; a worldwide perspective , released in September 1997. That report showed that there are 143 countries that impose a broad based indirect tax on goods and services; 109 of these impose a value added tax. Thirty-four countries impose a general tax on the supply of goods and services, including the USA. Seventeen countries do not impose any taxes on spending and there are seven countries in the world that impose a wholesale sales tax or manufacturers tax.The wholesale sales tax is the Australian Labor Party tax; it is the tax that the Australian Labor Party wants to fight to preserve in the next election. The other six countries which join the Australian Labor Party and its plans for Australia in supporting a wholesale sales tax are the following: Botswana, Ghana, Jordan, Pakistan, Solomon Islands and Swaziland. They are the six countries in the world which, along with Australia, support a wholesale sales tax—the kind of tax which Australian Labor is fighting for in the next election. It is also One Nation policy; One Nation supports the same tax regime as Botswana, Ghana, Jordan, Pakistan, Solomon Islands and Swaziland. Most countries in the world impose a value added tax because it gives the ability to rebate taxes on inputs to business.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—What about the United States?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I keep hearing this interjection from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, `What about the United States?' The United States does not impose a wholesale sales tax. Notwithstanding the misleading information put around by the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy, the United States does not impose a wholesale sales tax. The United States imposes an even worse tax than a value added tax—a retail sales tax. If Australian Labor wants to hold up the United States as an example, you will be introducing, as the United States has in 45 of 50 states, a retail sales tax which, as you know, is imposed at the cash register when you go along to buy. But you will find no support for the wholesale sales tax in the United States.The second breathtaking piece of ignorance that the Leader of the Opposition has displayed in relation to this is his claim that value added tax exists in Europe because the French invented it and made it a condition of the existence of the EU. These are the allegedly European countries that have value added tax: Singapore, Taiwan—I suppose Taiwan imposed it to get into the EU, did it?—Japan, China, Chile, Israel and New Zealand. The Australian Labor Party can draw comfort from the following countries: Botswana, Ghana, Jordan, Pakistan, Solomon Islands and Swaziland. They are the countries that support the Australian Labor Party's kind of taxation system.55225522Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister and follows his failure to answer the essential part of my previous question. Has the Prime Minister seen a statement released this morning by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho regarding her decision to run for the presidency of the New South Wales Legislative Council? Is he aware that in that statement she says:And to my great disappointment, the Liberals, and in particular, John Howard, have failed to clearly oppose and resist the politics of division represented by One Nation.. . . Government must show leadership in times of difficulty—this has clearly been the biggest failure of John Howard. One Nation has been allowed to grow without serious challenge from the Liberal Party.I ask the Prime Minister again: will you now show the sort of leadership that she is asking for and put One Nation last in all your states?5522Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition that, as he knows, these matters are determined by our party organisation. I do not intend under any circumstances—nor will they—to have their timetable determined by the Leader of the Opposition. The Liberal Party divisions in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania have already decided and the other divisions will take a decision at a time of their choosing, not of the nomination of the Leader of the Opposition.On the question asked of me in relation to Mrs Sham-Ho, I have had drawn to my attention a statement she made in the Legislative Council on 26 June, which is only three days ago, in which she said:I put on record that I do not intend to resign from the Liberal Party over One Nation preferences.She then went on to say:I have always said that I can be more effectual inside the Liberal Party working for all the people of New South Wales, while maintaining my personal integrity within the ethnic community.I am very sorry to say that what we are witnessing at the moment is not what is alleged by the Leader of the Opposition. What we are witnessing is the politics not of race but of sour grapes.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Why don't you show a bit of leadership?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition frontbench will remain silent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the opposition, including the member for Kingsford-Smith, are silent, I will call the member for Riverina.Mr O'Keefe interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke!5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Who are you kidding?55235523Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Trade.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—A real killer!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Kingsford-Smith. Remain silent, please.AH4Mr HICKS—Could the minister detail to the House the purpose of Australia's TradeStart program and how it assists those who live in the city of Wagga Wagga in the electorate of Riverina which I represent?5523Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I am pleased to affirm to the House the government established the TradeStart program last year to improve access to export services for new exporters in regional and rural Australia. TradeStart offices have been established already in nine such locations: Albany, Bathurst, Coffs Harbour, Geraldton, Launceston, Nowra, Rockhampton, Tamworth and Wagga Wagga. These offices use state-of-the-art technology to link in exporters. They work with local companies which have the potential and interest to start exporting for the first time. They also provide access to Austrade's information and counselling for new exporters and they act as a focal point to integrate delivery of export services in regional and rural centres, including those already in exporting.Export markets, of course, are essential to jobs and growth right across Australia, and the government's TradeStart offices are bringing those services directly to regional and rural areas where they can be readily accessed. They parallel the full payments being made under the export market development grant scheme, right across Australia, to several hundred companies involving exporters and trusts and costing some $140 million. I am delighted that Wagga Wagga has a TradeStart office. It is in business. It is helping boost the export efforts of the Riverina to the world and creating extra export jobs.55235523Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Treasurer, far from being worried about state particularities, has said in a published interview that One Nation has to be put last, saying, `Even though it might not be to your tactical advantage, it is an issue where you stand on principle'? Prime Minister, hasn't your deputy shown you up on how to tackle One Nation? When will you follow his lead and prevail upon the Queensland and Western Australia divisions of the Liberal Party and the National Party across Australia to put One Nation last?5523Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Of course I saw that statement. I have also seen a statement from the Treasurer to the effect that it is a matter for state divisions. In these matters, you pay on the results and the results so far are very good.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He just needs to have Keating's ticker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks!4T4MELHAMMr Melham—To take him out before the election!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Banks!55235523Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Minister, you would be aware of the complex changes occurring in agriculture across Australia and the need for farmers to plan ahead. I would be pleased if you would advise the House what the government is doing to help farmers plan for the future, particularly those in the Wimmera-Mallee of my electorate.5524Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Unquestionably this is a time of real challenge in rural Australia with enormous change being something that has accelerated largely as a result of what has happened to our north in recent times where the terms of trade deterioration has been quite alarming.The reality is that, of course, there are great opportunities, but they are going to take a lot of seizing. It is worth noting that, whilst I talked in this place last week about the very real progress the government has made in lowering farm inflation and in beating costs imposed on producers by things like interest rates, the efforts we have made in regard to exceptional circumstances and Agriculture-Advance Australia, it is also worth noting that in a number of areas we are doing some very practical things to help farmers secure their future in a time of enormous change. For example, we have now seen through this place the legislation for the new farm management deposits. They will come into operation in the new financial year. They are a vast improvement on existing arrangements, the IEDs and farm management bonds, and they will be available through the banks. They have been very widely welcomed by the farm community.Another example is the new FarmBis program. This will see a response to the huge increase in demand in recent times for this type of program. It involves some $50 million. That has been widely welcomed by farmers as well. Property management planning is a program that has been running for a few years. We now put in $10 million a year to that and the states put in another $10 million. It takes into account farm management, natural resource management, marketing and risk management—all facets of running a farm business in these new and challenging times. Then there are other packages such as the retirement assistance for farmers. All farmers, of course, can gift their assets and access the pension, but this allows for farmers in particularly difficult circumstances to do so on more liberal and generous terms.These sorts of measures, together with others such as landcare tax credits, for which we have provided some $80 million over the next three or four years, and our very solid ongoing commitment to rural research and development, demonstrate very clearly the government's willingness to do everything possible to help farmers secure their future, and with it the future of the towns and villages that service them, in times that are challenging and that involve great change for all people in rural Australia.55245524Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Does he recall telling the House last week that he has a `clear-cut disposition' on One Nation preferences and that when an announcement is made it will be `an honourable announcement'? Does he recall attacking One Nation in various Asian capitals because of the damage that party's sentiments will do to Australia's exports? Is he aware that after the election in Queensland some foreign investors announced that they would cancel investments in Queensland if a One Nation coalition took office? Will he confirm that, despite what he may do in his own seat, the federal National Party is poised to give its preferences to One Nation in the coming election? As leader of the National Party, will he now direct that One Nation is put last across Australia? And, if he does not, won't he have hopelessly compromised his holding of the trade portfolio?5524Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—No. Further, I have nothing to add to the situation, which I have explained is a seat by seat, state by state strategy. But I will add one other thing on a related matter. On Channel 10 yesterday, the member for Oxley virtually declared that she would be putting me last in my seat, and then changed her mind a couple of times during the day. I would just wear that as an exporters' badge of honour if that were to be the decision.55245524Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Minister, would you inform the House how the government's new youth allowance removes disincentives to study? How does the youth allowance assist young people in my electorate of Wakefield and other parts of regional Australia? Is the minister aware of any campaign designed to stop the Howard government delivering this important reform?5525Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for his question. I know that the honourable member for Wakefield is interested in the important reforms that this government has instituted in this area, and particularly in relation to the plight of young people in his regional electorate who are interested in ways and means by which they can improve their own employability. This system of the youth allowance has enabled us to put in place a scheme which ensures that young people are not paid more in the way of benefits than they would be paid to be supported in education and training. This is a very important reform. It is one which ensures that young people, who have been 2½ times more likely to be unemployed in later life if they do not receive training, are able to access training programs. It is very important and a new message that is going out to young people, that if you are in education you are going to be better off in life over time if you receive educational benefits, and you certainly will not be better off if you receive unemployment benefits in the form of welfare.It is an approach that ought to have had the support of the opposition but, regrettably, that was not the case. They preferred a system in which young people were treated differentially. We now have a system which ensures that all young people are treated equally. It ensures that for the first time students will receive rent assistance—an opportunity that was not available to them before. Under Labor, they did not receive a cent to help them pay the rent if they were living away from home undertaking study. We have a situation now where 70,000 young people, mostly from regional Australia, are able to get up to $75 a fortnight extra to help them with the study. It is interesting that members of the opposition still seem to want to oppose this important measure, which committed additional public funding of the order of $220 million over four years to put in place these new benefits. It was not a matter of removing public expenditure; it was additional public expenditure to ensure that a fair system was put in place.It is regrettable that the Labor Party is still opposing this measure and that their mates particularly in the Community and Public Sector Union are opposing this measure. I think it is important that members are aware that there is now a campaign to be motivated by the CPSU in relation to this measure. There are documents that are available—I intend to table these documents—outlining the nature of the campaign that they are proposing. It is quite a deceitful campaign. It is one in which thousands of genuine Centrelink employees are being asked to be involved in providing false claims about occupational health and safety matters to their superior officers. Even if they have got no claims and no advice that any client is complaining to them, they have been instructed that they have to file a notice. So the union has distributed kits containing misleading information to be given out to clients, a form of voting form and a pro forma letter that people might send to the minister as well.The motivation of this is clear. It is part of an election campaign in which the CPSU is involved with the Labor Party in trying to mislead customers and clients about the nature of these particular beneficial arrangements. It is using young people as a political football in a campaign which is quite unworthy. I would hope that the Labor Party would dissociate itself from this campaign and support the government in its endeavours to put in place a fairer system and one which considerably repairs the mess that the Labor Party left this country in.55255525Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the government is planning to increase the threshold at which the top marginal tax rate cuts in from $50,000 to $70,000? Is the Prime Minister aware that such a change would give all politicians a windfall gain of $800 a year but nothing to battling families on $30,000? How is this fair? Will you refuse to accept this tax cut windfall as you said you would with your $450 savings rebate windfall?5526Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is, even for him, utterly hypothetical. There will be a lot of speculation and I say to those who sit opposite: when the tax package comes out you will see that it is a fair and balanced tax package. It is a tax policy that addresses the unfairness in the existing system, it is a tax policy that will be good for rural Australia and it is a tax policy that, above everything else, will be fair. It will not be a rich man's tax policy. The only party sitting around here at the present time that has opposed endeavours by this government to clamp down on rorts on the rich are the members of the Australian Labor Party.55265526Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs. Is the minister aware, like the Bayley family from my electorate of McMillan is, of reports that some senators are threatening to block the government's origin labelling legislation? How will Australian consumers be affected if this legislation fails to be passed by the Senate?5526Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for McMillan for drawing attention to this obstructionism in the Senate to the government's very important country of origin legislation. Last week the Greens blocked the speedy passage of this legislation through the Senate. The Greens, it seems, are choosing some cheap political point scoring. They have refused repeated offerings of briefings on the legislation. Instead they have supported ignorance rather than the truth. The facts are that, under the government's proposed legislation, Product of Australia will be restricted to items that are 100 per cent Australian, or as near to it as it is possible to get.Made in Australia can be used on products which have been substantially transformed in Australia and have had at least 50 per cent of the cost of production incurred in Australia; indeed, there will be regulation-making powers to ensure that simple processes will not pass the substantial transformation test. This test is tougher than has been applied in any legislation in the past. It is tougher than generally applied in the courts. It is tougher than the rules that applied for the very popular green and gold Australian Made logo. It seems that Senator Brown, on behalf of the Greens, wants a Made in Australia test that is set at 75 per cent or maybe even 100 per cent. If he is setting that kind of a test, presumably he is prepared to allow things to be called Australian Made that cannot be called Made in Australia.The other nonsense that Senator Brown needs to explain, particularly to Tasmanians, is why he is advocating a labelling system that would not allow Cadbury chocolates to be called Made in Australia. The Incat ferries could not be called Made in Australia. I think it is time he explained that to Tasmanians. For that matter, Holden cars, most of the whitegoods and most of the clothing and footwear that is manufactured in this country could not be called Made in Australia. The fact is that the government's legislation is supported by the National Farmers Federation, the Pork Council and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It delivers honesty and certainty to labelling claims. I would call on the Senate to allow the passage of this important reform for industry, for farmers and for consumers and to deliver at last honesty and truthfulness in origin labelling claims.55265526Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is it not a fact that no Australian parliament which passes a piece of legislation can stop any later Australian parliament amending that legislation in any way it likes? Will the Attorney confirm that it is, accordingly, quite impossible for this parliament to pass an unalterable tax law saying that any GST rate can only be increased in future by agreement of the states?5526Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I think the question is actually out of order, in that it is seeking a legal opinion in the first part. I do not need to give Senator Evans a lecture on Dicey and the constitution.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Yes, you do.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—Maybe Senator Evans has been misleading students at Melbourne University in a former life by raising the issue.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Maybe you have been misleading the parliament. He is not a senator.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He is the member for Holt now.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—As the senator well knows, the limits of the parliament's legislative power are governed by the constitution and not by anything else. As far as the GST is concerned, it is a simple case that you will have to sit and wait. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister will let you know in due course.55275527Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. Can the minister inform the House of steps the government will take to counter the potential impact of performance enhancing drugs, in particular the use of erythropoietin, or EPO as it is known, on the Sydney 2000 games? What role will be played by Australian Sports Drug Agency and the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory?5527Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the honourable member for his question. This is a very interesting development in the war against drugs in sport. EPO is the acronym for a drug called erythropoietin, which is used to enhance the oxygen-carrying capacity of an athlete's blood. It is in fact a natural substance that occurs in human beings, but it can also be produced synthetically and therefore administered to athletes as a form of cheating.It is not detectable in the urine tests that are carried out by the Sports Drug Agency now, but I am pleased to inform the House that last week the chief sports scientist at the Australian Institute of Sport, Dr Ross Smith, whom some fans of the AFL football code may well remember from his time playing in Melbourne—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Yes, St Kilda.FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—He was a St Kilda player and a Brownlow medallist, was he not?CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—And a Brownlow medallist.FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—He has another Brownlow Medal here because in a research project, a collaborative one with the Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory, Dr Smith and his colleagues have developed in the laboratory a screening test to identify artificially administered EPO in athletes. This has been done in the laboratory and, henceforth, they propose to conduct screening tests on athletes to see whether or not the breakthrough they have achieved in the laboratory will be efficacious in detecting this form of cheating among athletes.To do that, it is proposed to use a number of volunteers from the ANU—athletes who are not at the elite level but who are participating in endurance sports at the club level. This is to make sure that no accusation could be made of Australia that we are using some of our elite athletes and perhaps mixing this sort of test with the competition that they may be participating in. It will take place, not on the AIS campus here in Canberra but in the ANU medical centre, where it will be supervised by the medical staff there in order to keep it as much as possible at arm's length from our athletes who are training at the AIS.I think this is an occasion when the House can congratulate a group of Australia's best scientists in producing a development that we hope, if it proves efficacious in the clinical trials, will be ready for use at the time of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games and will eliminate one of the last areas where athletes can use drugs to cheat and to do those who are genuine athletes out of medals.55275527Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware that, during the first four months of this year, the number of student visas issued for ELICOS students was 48.2 per cent down on last year and that it is claimed by the industry association representing these providers that between May 1997 and May 1998 there has been a loss of 827 jobs by Australians in that sector? What steps is the federal government taking to assist the international education sector, which has been badly affected by the Asian currency crisis? Is the government giving consideration to the deregulation of visas for students in countries such as China from where Australia only gets a small share of the number of students seeking to study overseas?5528Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for McPherson for his question. In looking at the statistical information that is available it is important to note that there have been significant variations in student enrolments from various parts of the world and from various countries. One ought not to be surprised at that. We are, for many source countries, far more competitive than we have been before. In relation to numbers of others, because of the international currency situations and also, because of the extent to which economic factors have impacted in the Asian markets, enrolments from some countries have been down. But overall, as I recall it, for last year, when one might have expected that the impact of what has been happening in Asia could have led to significantly reduced enrolments, that was not the case.Let me pick up the comments that the honourable member has made in relation to developing other markets. It is important to recognise that not all students who come to Australia might have aspirations of study. There are some parts of the world in which people will use the opportunity to enrol as a student to achieve another purpose; it can be a permanent migration purpose or a temporary entry purpose. The honourable member mentions China in particular. One of the aspects in relation to China, even with the very close and quite significant bona fides testing which goes on now, is that we do have a significant overstay rate for students from China. In addition, we have numbers of other students who apply to stay in Australia on other grounds. I think it was something of the order of 22 per cent of students from China in 1995-96 who remained in Australia on the basis that they had entered into a relationship with an Australian.The only comment I would make about that is that it is not necessarily a Chinese phenomenon that people would want to marry an Australian. If you look at Hong Kong, for instance, where there are also Chinese students, the figure is two per cent. One has to draw the logical conclusion that many of them are using the basis upon which we allow people to remain in Australia—that is, a family relationship—as a basis for perhaps obtaining a migration outcome rather than anything else.It is important, in relation to looking at developing markets, to have regard to bona fides questions. The government is anxious to expand the opportunities for students to study in Australia because bona fide students produce very significant economic benefits for Australia. But if you end up with non-bona fide students there is a significant downside, particularly if they end up in the protection stream making claims, where it costs us something of the order of $60,000 per student in order to be able to process their claims while they remain in Australia.55285528Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Status of Women. Could the minister please outline to the House the implications of the Fatal Offences Against the Person discussion paper, which has raised serious issues affecting women throughout Australia?5528Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—I thank the member for Makin for her question because I know she has taken a particular interest in this matter. Indeed, the discussion paper was released last week by the Minister for Justice, Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone. It strengthens the work done by the Howard government to prevent domestic violence from occurring.All too frequently, domestic violence against women and children does result in fatal offences. Women are at least three times more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of a domestic killing. When these events become the subject of court proceedings, partial defences are often used, such as diminished responsibility through extreme provocation.Provocation potentially is available in any situation in which family conflict or a break-up of a relationship causes a man to kill his spouse or a child. That is a standard which is arguably too low, if we are to maintain the value of human life in Australia. The discussion paper puts forward a view that these partial defences can never be an excuse for the taking of life. However, we need to examine whether self-defence is an appropriate plea for a woman who has suffered years of abuse and provocation.The paper provides an opportunity for public comment. The government welcomes the community input as we move toward improving this aspect of the legal system and giving people confidence that the legal system is actually working for them.55295529Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Given the government's decision to hide its GST in the price of goods and services, is it the Treasurer's intention—under a broad based GST—for a high school buying a Jane Austen novel as a text book to know that it is paying the same rate of tax as someone buying the same book for personal use?5529Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am wondering whether he left out the last sentence because he did not sort of get to the point of the question. But I will say this: this government supports tax reform; your opposition opposes it. We think that indirect tax should be known and should be broad based; you do not. But I will say one thing for the member for Werriwa. The member for Werriwa, I think, is concerned about the tax system; he has actually warned the Labor Party about, as he says it, lapsing into economic populism.Opposition members interjecting—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, members of the frontbench would assist if they were to stop intervening every few seconds with interventions.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. The question was highly specific about the hidden nature of the proposed GST and its specific application to books purchased as aspects of an educational course and books purchased as aspects of private recreational use. That was the nature of the question. He is way off the mark.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order. I would point out that a specific question does not require a specific answer; it does require a relevant answer. I am listening to the Treasurer to ensure that the answer is relevant.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—If you can't understand it, say so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The relevant answer, as I have said, is that, in principle, indirect tax should be on a broad base and it should be on a flat rate—and that is a situation which this government supports. Unfortunately, the Labor Party supports a wholesale sales tax whose chief advantages are different rates on different items, which give you the opportunity, as you know, to try to sneak tax rises through.I would recommend to the Australian Labor Party that it think very carefully about its position because, as the goods tax base continues to decline, all that means is that the rates will go up. As sure as night follows day, if the Labor Party were ever to come to office in this country, it would do what it did last time: increase every wholesale sales tax rate and reduce income tax cuts. That is the decision before the Australian people.55295529Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, on Thursday night, with the member for Wide Bay, the member for Fisher and me, you visited the township of Wondai and, subsequently on Friday, the townships of Maryborough and Hervey Bay. Prime Minister, can you outline for the House your reaction to the concerns of rural and regional Australians which were evident at those meetings?5529Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is the case that, accompanied by the member for Wide Bay, the member for Fisher and the member for Hinkler, I did attend a meeting in Wondai on Thursday night and, subsequently the follow ing day, at Hervey Bay and Maryborough. It was a very interesting experience—and it is not the first such experience in my political life, nor will it be the last. I took the opportunity of saying to those that I spoke to that I had a very strong personal belief in old fashioned hall meetings.Also, what was very instructive were the views expressed by the Australians I met regarding a lot of things—regarding the government, regarding the opposition and regarding the conduct of politics generally. One of the things that came through very strongly to me was that a lot of Australians do not like the immature points scoring that often goes on in parliament. A lot of the Australians I spoke to had gained the impression that, while their problems were being neglected by those they elected, those they elected spent an enormous amount of time in rather futile debate that was rather irrelevant to the concerns of the daily lives of those Australians.Much as the opposition would never ever listen to any advice from me, I think all members of parliament ought to take that message to heart, whether they belong to the Liberal, the Labor Party or, indeed, to any other party, because increasingly not only do Australians want value from their elected representatives but they want to feel that they are taking their concerns seriously. There is no doubt that there are many areas of rural poverty in our nation. I have little doubt that the major driving force behind recent political events is economic vulnerability rather than anything else.There are other issues, and there are aspects of the alternative policies that are being put around, which are causing some Australians of Asian descent to feel uncomfortable in this community for the first time in their lives. Such experience was related to me when speaking to a member of the Indian community in Melbourne the week before last. I then related that to the audience I addressed in Hervey Bay, saying that I think that is a matter of profound sadness and regret to all Australians who believe in a tolerant and cohesive society.The reality is that a lot of Australians in the bush work very hard. They run very efficient businesses. They have been savagely mauled by the downturn in world markets. Commodity prices are very low. The One Nation Party has come along and has said that the answer is to stop all imports. The answer is not to stop all imports, because if you stop all imports other people will stop all of our exports and we will end up being a great deal worse off than we are now. I think what is needed is a patient application of sensible economic policy. What is also needed is a strong rejection and repudiation of alternative proposals which do not offer any solutions.I think we need to understand that rural and regional Australia regards many people who live in the capital cities as being far better endowed than they are. If you go broke on the land, you do not get a redundancy. If you lose your farm income, you are not automatically entitled to income support. It is no good turning around and saying to those people, `You have a valuable asset,' when you cannot dispose of that asset. I think these are things that ought to be taken into account by all political parties. I can say to the people of rural and regional Australia that in the past I have been a frequent visitor. I continue to be and I will continue to be in the future. I would also say to them that the solution to your problems is not to be found in the transient offerings of those who offer populist solutions without any substance.The final thing I would say is that in the whole of my visit to the Wide Bay electorate, so well represented by my colleague Warren Truss, there was one party—and I must have spoken to something like 1,500 people—that got no mention at all and was not seen as even being relevant on the Australian political scene, and that was the Australian Labor Party.55305530McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it true that the Attorney has been urgently summonsed to appear tonight before the government backbench industry committee to explain why he failed to consult with industry prior to introducing schedule 3 of the Copyright Amend ment Bill 1997 , which allows parallel importation of goods protected by copyright in labels and packaging? Is this because an independent study by Price Waterhouse found that implementation of schedule 3 would cost the 1,500 businesses surveyed 9,000 jobs, reduce turnover by $3 billion a year and cut advertising revenue by $281 million? Attorney, why did you fail to consult with industry on this job and investment destroying policy?5531Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the first part of the question is no. I have not been summonsed to any committee.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Are you going?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Canberra has asked his question. He will remain silent.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—On the issue of consultation with industry, there has been very extensive consultation with industry. The report to which you refer I have not actually seen. To the extent of being briefed on it, I am told that it is a study not of the effect of the proposals on the economy or on relevant economic sectors but a suggested effect on some participants in business without looking at the other side of the equation. It is not a study to which I think any attention ought to be paid. The point is that those 1,500 people are the people who are using copyright laws to prevent competition. Copyright laws are not intended to be used for that purpose. They are afraid of competition. What we are intending to do is to offer them some competition so that consumers will benefit and prices will come down.55315531Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The minister will be aware of the recent launch of the Parramatta Job Network, consisting of the 15 organisations providing employment services for job seekers in my electorate. Will the minister update the House on progress on the roll-out of the national Job Network and of the positive response which the network is receiving throughout the community?5531Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. I congratulate him on the great support that he is giving to the Job Network in his own electorate. The Job Network has greatly improved services for employers and for unemployed people throughout Australia. There are now over 1,400 Job Network sites around Australia compared with 296 sites under the old CES. There are now many more high quality vacancies available on the national database than there ever were under the CES.The member for Parramatta is referring to the fact that, increasingly, as one listens to talkback radio around Australia, one hears many callers calling in saying how much the service has improved under the Job Network. Let me just quote a few examples for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the opposition. On the ABC Radio National on 10 June earlier this month a talkback caller called Amanda rang in—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh, Amanda! Amanda!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the opposition are silent, I will ask the minister to continue his reply.BT4Dr KEMP—The opposition does not like to hear this good news, Mr Speaker. The caller said:I found that it (Job Network) was much better than the CES. In the four months that I was unemployed the CES never once approached me to say, `Hey, look, what are you looking for? Can we help you?' There was nothing like that. Under the Job Network I got a job only a few days afterwards.There was a story earlier this month in the Brisbane Courier-Mail reporting the remark of one Andrew Taylor who had been unemployed for 12 months but got a job as a machinery serviceman through the Job Network on his first try. He was quoted as saying:I wasn't too keen on the old CES. Basically, I'd relied on ads in newspapers and word of mouth. But with my first try at Job Network I got a job.The Townsville Bulletin quoted Mr Robert Pattel, 47, who said the CES had not been able to find him a job in six months, but he found a job on the first day of using the Job Network:It feels great to be working again.There have been many commendations of the Job Network from employers. Employer Trish O'Brien of CO Services in South Australia wrote a letter to a local Job Network provider saying:We used the CES as a last resort only . . . We will use your company not as a last resort but as our first option!There was one comment, however, which I think the opposition may be interested to hear because it goes right to the credibility of their attack on the Job Network. There was one phone caller called Trevor on John Stanley's program on 2UE on 11 June who had this to say about the Labor Party spokesman, Mr Martin Ferguson:He had the same old rhetoric, the same old stuff, the old union claptrap, because he, Kelty, got rid of him, out of the trade union movement, so they gave him a nice old safe seat. And I think that it's terrible that that guy (Ferguson) is allowed to be let loose on the airwaves.That is the sort of statement that the people of Australia do not want to hear. They want to hear the truth about the Job Network and there are many positive comments now coming through about the improved services from this significant social reform.55325532Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the indigenous business incentive program, with a budget of $40,407,000, approved 66 applications for funding in 1996-97 and in 1997-98 has an allocation of $44,454,000 with interest rates starting at 1½ per cent? Considering your attacks on One Nation's policies to help the rural sector, small business, industry and manufacturing by re-prioritising existing funds with interest rates of two per cent, how can you justify criticism of initiatives to create employment through such assistance while at the same time you advocate race based low interest loans? Why does your government make low interest loans available only to indigenous Australians, when you called for equality in Longreach?5532Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware of that particular program. The precise details as alleged by the honourable member I will examine. But can I take the opportunity, as she has asked me a question, of referring again to the policy that was put forward by the honourable member's party during the Queensland election that proposed that there be generally available bank loans of two per cent. The question was asked about how that was going be financed and where you would find the investors that would put money in it at 1½ per cent to enable it to be lent out at two per cent, to which the response was, `Oh, well, it is not going to operate like an ordinary bank. How it is going to operate is that we are going to print the money.' Nothing that the honourable member says can alter the fact that one of the three shareholders in her party—Ms Hanson interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Now do not start interrupting; that is very bad. It is very bad to start interrupting.Ms Hanson interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You must never get personal, Pauline. Do not get personal. What I think was the point being made by the Treasurer and by myself was that, if you are not going to finance it by getting depositors to put money in at 1½ per cent so the bank can make a profit, what is the alternative method? The alternative method that was put forward by David Ettridge, who is one of the three sponsors of your party, was that what you had to do was print money. Nothing can erase that remark from the record, and one of the rules of Australian politics is that if you say something, as I have learnt, people will in the future remind you of what you have said. That, I must say, has happened to me and it has happened to him. And I tell you what, it is happening to you as well. Now that your party is on the playing field you have to be made accountable like the rest of us and the reality is that the proposition that you can generally make money available at two per cent is, of course, absurd, for the reasons that the Treasurer and I have pointed out.So far as indigenous people are concerned, one of the reasons for that particular proposal, as I understand it, was to encourage indigenous Australians to become economically self-sufficient. The criticism that is frequently made of indigenous Australians by other Australians in rural areas is that they are forever depending upon welfare handouts and that they get an undue proportion of welfare handouts. I would have thought, as a matter of elementary logic, that one of the ways to change that is to bring in policies that give them personal economic empowerment. That, in fact, has been the policy that Senator John Herron, my Aboriginal affairs minister, has followed from the day that I appointed him to that ministry. In the face of the most ridiculous criticism from the Australian Labor Party and from others who purport to represent the Aboriginal cause, Senator Herron has been criticised. But I am very proud of the attempts that we have made to give people economic empowerment and I can understand impoverished people in rural areas of Australia resenting anything that resembles economic handouts.Can I say to the honourable member that the criticisms I have made in relation to that bank are absolutely right. You will never be allowed to forget that your offsider said that you could print money to finance a bank any more than I will ever be allowed to forget things that I have said that my opponents think they can criticise, because they are the rules of politics under which you play. I remind the honourable member that, if you seek to influence the affairs of this country, you, like anybody else, are a politician like the rest of us. There is no such thing as a non-political politician any more than there is any such thing as a non-sporting sportsman. You are on the field. Your policies are there for the public to see and like everybody else's they are subject to legitimate analysis and legitimate criticism.55335533Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel. Minister, could you please advise the House how the new defence policies will impact on local industry in such areas as my electorate of Gilmore and how local residents will benefit from the major injection of funding for defence housing in the south coast of New South Wales?5533Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BISHOPSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Indeed, I can—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I move that this question and all further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will restrain his enthusiasm.SE4Mrs BISHOP—I think the Leader of the Opposition forgot his place—and long may he remain in it.Mr Gareth Evans interjecting—SE4Mrs BISHOP—I take it the member for Holt thinks there is something wrong with schoolteachers, does he?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question.SE4Mrs BISHOP—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I know the concern that she has for industry in her electorate and I know the concern that she has for defence personnel who reside in her electorate. With regard to the defence industry policy, the policy that we announced two weeks ago will certainly give assistance to indigenous Australian small and medium enterprises. I can say that the injection of additional business into her electorate will result in additional jobs.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will remain silent.SE4Mrs BISHOP—I advise the House that the three most important sectors of finance into her region are, firstly, ordinary manufacturing; thirdly, defence; and—sadly—secondly, social security. So, indeed, additional defence industry business is very important to her electorate. With regard to the question of the Defence Housing Authority and housing for defence personnel, the government has announced in the last two weeks that the Defence Housing Authority will not be privatised.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Until the election.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane.SE4Mrs BISHOP—It will remain in government ownership because this is a proper function for government to carry out. It is not in business, competing with the private sector; it is providing an important part of service provisioning which means that families have the opportunity to have quality of life while their serving personnel carry out their duties and responsibilities in a straightforward manner. I say to the honourable member that, overall, the importance of those two announcements to your electorate is that the people of Gilmore benefit because you are their voice in government.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker553455345534Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 150 I would ask that you write to the Prime Minister regarding question No. 2339, put on the Notice Paper on 2 October and relating to proposals to mine uranium at Jabiluka, and request that an answer be provided.5534Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write, as the honourable member requests.55345534Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 150, I request that you write to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development to seek an explanation as to why my question on notice to him, No. 2790, formally lodged in this parliament on 24 March 1998, in excess of three months ago, is yet to be provided by him to this parliament.5534Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development and request a reply.55345534McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 150, I ask you to write to the Minister for Health and Family Services with respect to question Nos 2445, 2538 and 2833, and also to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, with respect to question Nos 2911 and 2770.5534Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write on the respective questions, as requested.55345534Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 150, I ask you to write to the Minister for Finance and Administration with respect to question No. 2646, lodged in this parliament on 2 March; to the Minister for Trade with respect to question No. 2652, lodged in this parliament on 2 March; to the Minister for Social Security with respect to question No. 2655, lodged in this parliament on 2 March; and to the Leader of the House, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business—I know he is concerned about parliamentary practice—with respect to question No. 2838, lodged in this parliament on 2 April.5534Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write, as the honourable member requests.55345534Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 150, I ask that you write to the Minister for Finance and Administration, with respect to question No. 2597, first placed on the Notice Paper by me on 4 December 1997.5534Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write, as the honourable member requests.Auditor-General's Reports553410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 49 for 1997-98 entitledPerformance audit—Evaluation processes for the selection of hearing devices—Department of Health and Family Services .Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 49 of 1997-98; and(2) the report be printed.553410001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:55341776K6 CK6 KK6 0V5Elson Kay MP; Hardgrave Gary MP; McDougall Graeme MP; Slipper Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Sexuality Discrimination Bill (SBD) which is expected to be introduced into Parliament in the near future. In particular, the petitioners wish to alert the House to concerns that this legislation will: Whilst granting special rights to homosexuals, take away significant rights from the majority of Australians. Force citizens to employ/tolerate homosexuals and their activities—where this is contrary to their beliefs. Further validate homosexual partnerships and pave the way for same-sex marriage and adoption rights. Burden proof on employers, churches, schools, etc, as to why they should be exempt from this legislation. Not exempt groups receiving government funding and thus force compliance under threat of loss of funds. Override States' rights, invalidate existing laws and put Australia at the mercy of international treaties. Curtail freedom of speech in churches when proclaiming scriptural truth on issue of family, sexuality, etc.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House reject the Sexuality Discrimination Bill in its entirety and thereby protect the status and rights of the vast majority of Australians.Mrs Elson6K6Mrs Elson(from 83 citizens)Mr HardgraveCK6Mr Hardgrave(from 36 citizens)Mr McDougallKK6Mr McDougall(from 25 citizens)Mr Slipper0V5Mr Slipper(from 33 citizens)55351315A5 PG6 HH4Brown Bob MP; Macklin Jenny MP; Jenkins Harry MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows that: the Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable; fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet the extra costs; the Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs; the Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk. Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament: make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 14 citizens)Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 51 citizens)Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 66 citizens)5535381BV5Adams Dick MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of residents of the Northern Midlands of Tasmania draws the attention of the House to the removal of a digital mobile phone service in Cressy, Poatina, Bracknell and Campbell Town areas. It was instated for a period of time and removed without warning. There are many residents and businesses within this area who are highly disadvantaged by the removal of many services in rural areas and this service would have been highly beneficial to locals and tourists alike if it had remained.Your petitioners therefore request the House to reinstate the digital telephone service at Mt Blackwood Exchange as soon as possible.Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams(from 381 citizens)553594830K6Bartlett Kerry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives as assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House that a major no-curfew international airport at Badgery's Creek, New South Wales, will:1. impact adversely on the environmental, heritage and recreational values of the Blue Mountains National Park, the Blue Mountains Community and the Tourism Industry due to the movements of aircraft and vehicles causing noise pollution and air pollution, including acid rain;2. impact adversely on Sydney's water supply by the effects of airborne particulates from fuel emissions, aircrashes and the dumping of fuel over the catchment area.Your petitioners therefore request the House not to pass any Bill which would lead to the construction of an airport at Badgery's Creek, New South Wales and to seek a site outside the Sydney air space.Mr Bartlett0K6Mr Bartlett(from 9,483 citizens)5535948ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland call the House of Representatives to advise the Federal Transport Minister to— not endorse the BAC's Masterplan recommendations for a western parallel runway; initiate instead a full and independent cost-benefit analysis of all runway options to be taken before any endorsement of any single runway option occurs; ensure that this full cost-benefit analysis includes an analysis of total numbers affected by each runway option.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will forever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 948 citizens)5536452ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We oppose a nursing home care policy which places economics before people.We urge you to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need, not ability to pay.We urge you to reverse the $500 million in funding cuts to aged care to provide adequate nursing home facilities for all Australians.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 452 citizens)55361892K6Brough Mal MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the absence of National Service.Request the House to reintroduce National Service.Mr Brough2K6Mr Brough(from 189 citizens)5536145A5Brown Bob MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of Australia, draws to the attention of the House, that the new Youth Allowance:Discriminates against young people aged between 18 to 21.Stops young people from getting any Government benefit if their parents earn more than $42,000.Doesn't recognise young people's independence when they turn 18. Your petitioners therefore request that the House reverse the Youth Allowance laws and recognise that young people do have the right to live an independent life, regardless of what income their parents may earn.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 14 citizens)5536135A5Brown Bob MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:GST—the tax that will slug Australian familiesThe petition of electors of the Division of Charlton draws to the attention of the House that a flat rate Goods and Services Tax across all goods and services is regressive.It is regressive because the same tax rate is paid by all people on their total consumption irrespective of their income or wealth.In fact, lower income people have a higher proportionate tax burden because they consume a greater proportion of their income than higher income people.We petitioners are totally opposed to this unfair tax because as well as being fundamentally unfair to the Australian community, it simply will not address the real issue facing Australia, namely jobs and job security.We, the undersigned, urge the House not to consider a Goods and Services Tax, in any form, because it is fundamentally unfair to low and middle income earners.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 13 citizens)5536115A5Brown Bob MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of electors of the Division of Charlton draws to the attention of the House that the sale of the Commonwealth Government's remaining share of Telstra will be to the detriment of most Australians, and especially those who cannot afford to buy shares.The sale will result in a major public asset passing into private ownership, with up to 35 per cent of its ownership being controlled by foreign interests.In addition, any further sale of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure has the potential to severely disadvantage those Australians who choose to live outside the large metropolitan areas, as they experience connection and maintenance delays and difficulties, and as the level of service delivery falls behind the large cities.The sale will lead to further job losses as high profits become more important than good service, and many of the job losses will be in rural and regional areas of Australia where unemployment is already a massive problem.Your petitioners therefore request that the House oppose any legislation that will allow for the further sale of Australia's publicly owned telecommunications system.We, the undersigned, urge the House not to sell such a vital part of our national infrastructure, and instead retain Telstra in two-thirds public ownership.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 11 citizens)5537267T4Crosio Janice MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the widespread opposition which exists in western Sydney over the planned development of a 24 hour international airport at Badgerys Creek; the damage to people's health and quality of life that will accompany such a development, and the Federal Government's failure to seriously re-examine other alternative and more suitable sites for an airport outside the Sydney basin.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House requests the Federal Government to discontinue its plans to build Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek and that it immediately begins a serious re-examination of the suitable airport sites outside the Sydney basin.Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio(from 26 citizens)5537577LS4Ferguson Martin MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.Place One Nation last.We the undersigned draw to the attention of the House our rising concerns about political parties whose ideologies are based on the politics of racial and cultural division.We believe that candidates and political parties who do not place One Nation, and the like, last on their preferences are placing political expediency ahead of the best interests of this nation and as such are harming Australia's social, cultural and economic interests both at the domestic and international levels.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to support our call for all candidates and political parties to rise above short term political expediency at the next Federal election and place any party which is based on the politics of racial and cultural division last on their how-to-vote cards.Mr Martin FergusonLS4Mr Martin Ferguson(from 577 citizens)553765HH4Jenkins Harry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House community anger over the backward stance of the current Federal Government on the environment. The decision to mine uranium at Jabiluka is a symbol of this government's preference for `development at any cost', and the failure of the government to protect the Kakadu World Heritage Area has destroyed Australia's international reputation as a leader in environmental protection.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call on the Government to reverse its decision in light of further environmental assessments that confirms the potential of the mine to impact on the wilderness and world heritage values of Kakadu National Park.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr JenkinsHH4Mr Jenkins(from 65 citizens)553735K26Latham Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Mr LathamK26Mr Latham(from 35 citizens)55374436XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.For permanent protection of old-growth forests and all other areas of high conservation value, and for the implementation of tree plantation strategies.This petition from the undersigned respectfully points out that: there is an increasing and urgent demand from the people, to protect all remaining high conservation value forests which support flora and fauna unique to Australia, thus complying with the United Nations Biodiversity Convention to which Australia is a signatory. We have a responsibility to future and present generations, and the necessary reasons, knowledge and technology to act now on the following achievable solutions.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives legislate to: Immediately stop all logging and woodchipping activities in high conservation value native forests; ensure intergenerational equity by planning for the rights of future generations, and protecting in perpetuity all biologically diverse old-growth forests, wilderness, rainforests and critical habitats of endangered species; facilitate rapid transition of the timber industry from harvesting high conservation value native forests to establishing mixed-species farm forestry on existing cleared and degraded lands, using non-toxic methods to protect ecological sustainability; maximise use of readily-available plantation timber for industry needs, using appropriate forestry techniques and progressive minimal-waste processing methods, such as radial sawing, and wherever possible, reuse and recycle wood and paper products; support incentives for nationwide employment in composting, soil remineralisation programs, and the planting of trees and annual fibre crops, inter-grown with appropriate fruit and nut trees and medicinal plants; encourage sensitively-managed, environmental education tourism in appropriate forest areas, with full respect for natural ecosystems, Aboriginal cultural heritage, sacred sites and other sites of significance; and progressively utilise technological expertise and resources transferred from the military sector, to help implement these tree planting solutions; and to motivate the international community to follow this example.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 4,436 citizens)5538238MG4Lee Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—particularly the financial impact these changes place upon those people who require prescription medicines.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against those with the greatest incapacity to pay for prescription medicines.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr LeeMG4Mr Lee(from 238 citizens)55384ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes place upon those people who require prescription medicines. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against those with the greatest incapacity to pay for prescription medicines.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from four citizens)553883PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.Australian women deserve better! Speak out on International Women's Day.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the negative effects the Government's jobs, education and health policies are having on Australian women. Failure to create jobs and sustain decent wages together with the rising costs of education, health and childcare which have resulted from deep Budget cuts have reduced both the incomes and the opportunities of Australian women.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to implement policies which advance the position of Australian women and which reverse much of the damage that has already been done to women as a result of two Federal Budgets.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 83 citizens)553823518I4Martin Stephen MPPetition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentNo nuclear reactor in Sutherland ShireI strongly oppose construction of a nuclear reactor in Sydney. Nuclear activity generates radioactive emissions and radioactive waste for which Australia has no repository. A nuclear accident has implications for all of Sydney. Such facilities should not be located in Australia's largest city.Your petitioners pray that the House will join them in opposing increased nuclear activity in Sydney.Mr Martin8I4Mr Martin(from 2,351 citizens)55391604I4McLeay Leo MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often necessitating the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care. Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which provides no additional benefit to the resident and is nothing more than a disguised tax.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Leo McLeay4I4Mr Leo McLeay(from 160 citizens)5539327HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:Opposition to the NCC Report for Further Deregulation of Australia PostThese petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are opposed to the National Competition Council (NCC) Report proposals to deregulate Australia's postal services. We are gravely concerned that this would drastically reduce the revenue of Australia Post and result in adverse impacts on most Australians (including increased postal charges and reduced frequency of services), especially for those in rural and remote areas.Your petitioners respectfully request that the House call on the Government to reject the NCC Report proposals in their entirety and to support the retention of Australia Post's current reserved service and the uniform postage rate, and the existing cross-subsidy funding arrangement for the uniform standard letter service.Further, we ask that the existing community service obligation of Australia Post be extended to encompass a minimum level of service for financial and bill paying services, delivery frequency, a parcels service and access to counter services, through either corporate or licensed post offices.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 327 citizens)553940MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable Mr Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives as assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws attention of the House that a major no-curfew air port at Badgerys Creek, New South Wales will:adversely affect the health of the region's residents to totally unacceptable community levels.adversely affect the environment—in terms of noise, air and water quality—that is totally unacceptable in our community.adversely affect our children's schooling and their future opportunities in life.adversely impact on the region's long term economic viability and its ability to foster a diversified economy that can deliver employment.Your petitioners therefore request the House not to pass any Bill which would lead to the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek, New South Wales, and seek an airport site outside of the Sydney basin.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 40 citizens)553936MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the residents of Western Sydney draws to the attention of the House our concern about the proposed second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek.We believe the extra air, water and noise pollution from such an airport will have a detrimental impact on the health of the residents of Western Sydney, as well as on the quality of life in the region.Your petitioners therefore request the House to take note of our concerns and ensure that they are addressed.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 36 citizens)553922MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House that:1. a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport at Badgerys Creek, NSW;2. airports are a major source of air pollution and noise pollution;3. western Sydney already suffers from the worst air and noise pollution in Australia;4. an airport at Badgerys Creek, NSW, will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; 5. an airport at Badgerys Creek, NSW, will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working in western Sydney.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House not pass any Bill which would lead to the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek, NSW.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 22 citizens)5540605V5Smith Stephen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembledThe Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia points out to the House:That we, the undersigned, object to the mining of uranium at Jabiluka, in World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. Uranium mining and nuclear energy are damaging to the environment for hundreds of thousands of years, and we believe that these industries are unethical and not in the national interest, nor in the interest of the global community.The Jabiluka site is being developed against the wishes of the Mirrar people, the traditional owners of the land. We support them in their opposition to the Jabiluka Mine.Our petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives to call on the Federal Government to:Act responsibly. Stop Jabiluka Uranium Mine. Save Kakadu.Mr Stephen Smith5V5Mr Stephen Smith(from 60 citizens)55401606UK6Thomson Kelvin MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that thousands of Australian citizens and elected officials have signed the following `Call for LaRouche's Exoneration'."An open letter to the President of the United StatesA Call for LaRouche's Exoneration On Jan. 26, 1994, the American statesman and physical economist Lyndon H. LaRouche was freed on parole after having served five years in federal prison as a political prisoner. His freedom came only after an unprecedented international mobilization. Close to 1,000 of America's foremost legal experts had petitioned the court as amici curiae, calling the case `a threat to every politically active citizen'. The case was brought before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the Organization of American States, and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Literally thousands of parliamentarians and other elected officials joined with religious leaders, artists, scientists, and human rights figures from across the globe to demand an end to LaRouche's unjust incarceration. Hundreds travelled in delegations to Washington, D.C. to lobby for LaRouche's freedom. Finally, after five long years, Lyndon LaRouche was freed on parole. But the fact remains that a terrible crime still goes unanswered. Not only was an innocent man framed, convicted, and wrongfully imprisoned for five years, but, it is now clearly the case, documented by six volumes of unchallengeable evidence, consisting chiefly of government documents, and admissions of government-led `task force' officials, that the U.S. government knew at all relevant times, from 1979 to the present day, that Lyndon H. LaRouche and his co-defendants were innocent of the false charges for which they were convicted. This proof, that the government fraudulently charged, convicted and imprisoned LaRouche and his associates, knowing they were completely innocent, is part of the public record on file with the Federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. Yet to this day, not only have the U.S. Federal courts and the Justice Department failed to rectify this fraudulent conviction, but, while this critical evidence sits gathering dust without ever being heard, five of Mr. LaRouche's associates still sit in prison, serving decades-long sentences. We, the undersigned, are compelled to act in the name of law, to demand that you, Mr. President, along with Attorney General Janet Reno, and the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress, take any and all measures necessary to ensure the full and immediate exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche. The failure to do so does not stain the honor of Lyndon LaRouche, who has paid a terrible price for his innocence, but the honor of the U.S. justice system and Constitution, which, for more than 200 years prior to this dark episode, stood as the symbols of liberty and justice for all."Your petitioners therefore request the House to approach President Clinton to act in the spirit of the above-cited `Open Letter' to him.Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson(from 1,606 citizens)5540212YK6Wilton Greg MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of local residents draws to the attention of the House that the suburb of Carrum Downs, in the State of Victoria, is in urgent need of a Post Office.Carrum Downs is a large and fast growing outer metropolitan suburb with limited public transport. Consequently the residents are disadvantaged through the lack of a post office.Continued retail and business expansion is being hindered by the lack of postal facilities.Your petitioners therefore request that the House support moves to establish a Post Office in Carrum Downs.We, the undersigned, urge this Parliament to establish a Post Office in Carrum Downs.Mr WiltonYK6Mr Wilton(from 212 citizens)55411260ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The Petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House that:1. a proposal has been made by the Department of Transport to build a major no-curfew international airport in Sydney's western suburbs;2. airports and attendant infrastructure are a major source of air pollution and noise pollution;3. western Sydney already suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia;4. an additional airport in the Sydney airshed will only serve to greatly increase such pollution;5. an airport in Sydney's west will harm the lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and working within the Sydney airshed.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House not pass any Bill which would lead to the construction of any airport in the Sydney airshed.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 1,260 citizens)554120ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played by senior members of the coalition government.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 20 citizens)55419ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speakers and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns regarding the issue of the proposed new Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take immediate steps to reject the current form of legislation which will:1. Bring into being a Therapeutic Goods Act that will severely curtail competition by restricting permissible statements in advertising that far exceed the restrictions imposed on any other sector of private enterprise.2. Set up a system by which even unwitting offenders against the Advertising Code will have no legal recourse and can be effectively prevented from trading.3. Limit the right of citizens to make fully informed choices in selecting health care options from the range of traditional and alternative therapies available.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from nine citizens)55419ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of the people of Australia shows:Our opposition to the use of Genetic Engineering of any form of life, on environment, moral and social grounds. Further, we wish to show our opposition to any form of patenting of life. We request that the parliament introduce laws to end the genetic engineering industry and research into genetic engineering. We also request that the parliament repeal all legislation enabling the patenting of life forms and withdraw from any international conventions committing Australia to implementing patenting laws.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, do pray.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from nine citizens)55418ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain members of the Australian community affirms our commitment to a culturally diverse Australian society which is unified by a common desire to see all Australians, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age or ability treated with respect and dignity. We recognise the contribution that all Australians have made to the cultural, social and economic development of Australia, and reject the views expressed by Pauline Hanson as divisive and not based on fact. In recognition of the need to debate these issues honestly and publicly, we request the House to call upon the Federal Government to mount a high profile anti-racism campaign (for which funds were provided in the 1996-97 budget) and fulfil its obligations to build and maintain a harmonious and united Australia.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from eight citizens)5542OK6Nairn Gary MP13:11:005542Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I ask leave of the House to present a petition from 1,607 electors of the electoral division of Eden-Monaro praying for urgent and positive action to be taken to provide for the installation of SBS television facilities to the south-east coast of New South Wales. The petition is in accordance with the standing orders of the House.Leave granted.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—I present the petition. I also ask leave for the terms of the petition to be incorporated in Hansard and for a copy to be referred to the appropriate minister.Leave granted.The petition read as follows—To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of certain electors of the Federal Electorate of Eden/Monaro draws to the attention of the house the desire by the electors for the installation of S.B.S. television facilities to the South East Coast, and that this service be funded by the Federal Government.Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the house request: Urgent and positive action to this matter.Petitions received.Private Members' Business5542554215:13:005542Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I move:That the House of Representatives: (1) welcomes the statement on 1 June 1998 by Indonesian Justice Minister Mulyadi that the Indonesian Government will consider an investigation into the circumstances of the deaths of 6 Australian based journalists in East Timor in 1975;(2) welcomes news of the possible release of up to 12 East Timorese political prisoners by the Government of Indonesia;(3) notes that the UK Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr Derek Fatchett, acting as Prime Minister Tony Blair's special emissary, recently met with jailed East Timorese leader Xanana Gusmao and called for his release; and(4) requests that the Government of Indonesia give serious consideration to the release of Xanana Gusmao, noting that this would be a vital confidence building measure that could be an important step leading to a peaceful resolution of the East Timor conflict.The situation in Indonesia is changing almost daily and, indeed, since this motion was drafted there have been substantial changes in the positions of the major players in the East Timor issue. I do indeed welcome statements from Indonesian Justice Minister Mulyadi that his government will consider an investigation into the deaths of the six Australian newsmen during the Indonesian invasion of the Portuguese province in 1975 and subsequently.According to information from the office of our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), Mr Mulyadi is understood to have said that he would have to clarify the sort of investigation after seeking information from the head of the armed forces. According to information on the public record, the captain of the Indonesian Red Beret commandoes who led the Indonesian assault on Balibo on Thursday, 16 October 1975 when five newsmen died was Yunus Yosfiah, later promoted to general and now a member of President Habibie's new ministry. I register my concern that any promise of an inquiry into these killings may mean little if the brotherhood of the Indonesian military gets in the way of a truly honest attempt to bring to justice the perpetrators of this war crime.Indonesia owes a full and frank explanation to the relatives of Brian Peters, Malcolm Rennie, Gary Cunningham, Greg Shackleton and Tony Stewart who died at Balibo, and Roger East who died in Dili. They owe it to the world, just as we all owe the victims of the Santa Cruz massacre and those 100,000 to 200,000 other victims of this 23-year-old war a peaceful and just resolution to their struggle.Having said that, I sincerely welcome President Habibie's apparent willingness to open a new dialogue on the East Timor conflict and his gesture of sincerity by the release of 15 East Timorese political prisoners. However, at last count there were something like 140 such prisoners. I note weekend press reports of comments by Xanana Gusmao, the gaoled East Timorese leader, who suggests he could serve his country better by remaining in detention. He also says a referendum for self-determination in East Timor could occur in five to 10 years.With the forbearance and courage of a Nelson Mandela, Gusmao says, `Be patient, the wind has already changed direction.' And so it has. But how confident can we be that the tenure of President Habibie will last five years? How accommodating will the Indonesian military be in this post-Suharto Indonesia?We must never forget that up to 200,000 East Timorese have perished in this conflict. We must never forget the regime that perpetrated these crimes, including the torture and violation of human rights. It is one thing to withdraw some troops in the short term, it is another to offer real hope to the 800,000 East Timorese. That can only come through a referendum or, at the very least, a non-binding plebiscite as a first step with its results determining a program for East Timor's future status.The Catholic Archbishop of Dili, Carlos Belo, has suggested a transitional solution along the lines suggested by President Habibie where East Timor is given special status within the Indonesian republic, but with an act of self-determination and a vote on independence within 10 to 15 years. Australia has a vital role to play in this, being the only country in the world to recognise Indonesia's unlawful annexation of the former Portuguese colony. Australia can now redeem itself in the eyes of the Free World by assisting Indonesia and East Timor along this difficult path.After the Asian economic crash Australia achieved added status in the region. It has provided help through the IMF and its credibility as a good and caring Asian neighbour must be greatly enhanced, despite my reservations on the record of this House about the way this funding was approved without any debate. Nevertheless, we have a golden opportunity to take a proactive role in brokering a fair and humane outcome to what has been a very black blot on our foreign affairs record. Let us never forget the assistance the East Timorese gave our troops when sheltering them from the enemy during World War II. One digger, Cliff Morris, said recently, `They gave me my life.'It is time Indonesia and Australia put aside their fears of instability from some independent or quasi-independent state on their borders or set aside their greed over access to Timor Gap resources and offered these brave people a say in their own future. That future may well be, with goodwill of the sort displayed by President Habibie—and I think all Australians welcome his very proactive and positive stance—integration with Indonesia while retaining some special status. That may be the choice. It also might be independence, but they must be given the choice. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:18:005543Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I am pleased to speak to this motion, and I have to say that I support the comments of the member for Calare (Mr Andren). It seems to me that we have a unique opportunity at this time to influence events in Indonesia generally, and particularly perhaps have some influence on what is a festering sore—the situation in East Timor. Therefore, I am pleased to see the member for Calare introduce this motion into the chamber at this time and to encourage the government, which has already been doing a fair amount, to do more to try to influence the outcome.Obviously the previous speaker and I read some of the same newspaper articles at the weekend. I notice that Mr Gusmao also talked about the fact that, from his point of view, it is not just a question of wanting independence—although that is his private view. He also accepts that, if there were a referendum and the people of East Timor chose to be integrated in some shape or form or to look at some form of local autonomy, that is something which he is prepared to live with.It seems that we have recently had an outstanding example of how quite difficult, long-running situations in the world can be resolved by people talking. I refer, of course, to the situation in Northern Ireland, where the result of the bloodshed, the history and the acrimony over a great many years has been a quite appalling tragedy. We have seen, in the last few days, democratic elections in Northern Ireland and, hopefully, Northern Ireland will now go from strength to strength. Similarly, I am very encouraged by this motion which is about encouraging the Indonesians to move in the same direction.We have seen discussions with Archbishop Belo and we have seen a new direction from the new president in Indonesia, President Habibie. If the parties concerned can get together and talk and if Australia can use some of its newfound influence in the area to encourage a resolution of the East Timor situation, I think we will, indeed, make headway.It is obviously of concern that, when we hear things in the media, they be accurately reported. I sometimes worry that the things we read in the media raise hopes when there really should not be or that they do not tell us the true situation. The reported comments of Justice Minister Mulyadi have, I think, been somewhat overstated. My understanding of what he said is that he does not have much information about the case we are talking about—the Australian media people who were killed. He expressed a willingness for the incident to be investigated and noted that Indonesia would have to clarify the position in terms of international confidence. It worries me that he might only want the incident to be clarified in terms of international confidence rather than investigating it and doing something about it in its own right as an issue. Perhaps we really do need to apply a bit more pressure there to make sure things are done for the right reasons rather than just for international PR.With regard to what sort of investigation there would be, Minister Mulyadi went on to say that he would have to clarify this with the head of the armed forces and seek information from him. Again, I think I would support the position of the member for Calare in saying that one is nervous about the armed forces. The perception is that there may be some changes under way, but history bodes badly in this regard and so one needs to treat these sorts of statements with some caution.On 3 June, Foreign Minister Ali Alatas referred publicly to the Justice Minister's comments on an investigation into the deaths of the Australian based journalists. When asked about it, Minister Alatas reportedly said that Justice Minister Mulyadi's comments were not reported in their full context. Minister Mulyadi had indicated that, if there is strong legal evidence, the case would be reconsidered.It seems to me that there are a few doubts and perhaps they were just a few words having it each way that should not make us too enthusiastic that things will finally be sorted out. Hopefully they will be. But I think there are indications that the government needs to continue to apply pressure, as it has been—subsequent speakers will, I am sure, refer to this—for a great period of time. Particularly at this juncture in Indonesia's history, I think we have a unique opportunity to apply more pressure in terms of the investigation into the deaths of our journalists who were killed there and undertake support for East Timor. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)15:23:005544Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—As a person who had a deep interest in this matter long before I entered this House, I express pleasure in being involved in the motion. The situation has been summarised by a number of previous speakers. The reality is that the essential outcome of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor was the death of 200,000 people. That is not a figure invented by activists on this matter; it is not a figure constructed by proponents of the Timorese cause. It is the figure that the federal parliament's foreign affairs committee has adopted on the basis of evidence and in particular from census statistics before the Indonesian occupation.Two hundred thousand people were starved or shot or died in some other way as an outcome of their forced relocation. To some degree people might say it was unavoidable because of our geographic location but Australia, unfortunately, has not played the best role in this matter. Despite the deaths of Roger Easson and the six Australian journalists, Australia—alone in the world—has given de jure recognition to Indonesia. Whilst Indonesia has been able on occasion to avoid resolutions in international fora that are very critical of it and despite the way in which a number of Islamic countries have put religion first in supporting the Indonesians, the fact of political life, the fact of international diplomacy, is that the lone country that has recognised this occupation is Australia. Whilst I do not think that the Second World War's events should necessarily dictate policies in the 1990s, this is ironic because of the support given by the Timorese to Australian causes during that conflict.I want to put on record my appreciation of groups like the East Timor Human Rights Centre, which today has forwarded to me a document which itemises the people who are being incarcerated for political opposition to this regime in regard to Timor. On their estimates they note that 141 people are still being held as prisoners in regard to this matter, some of them since 1991.There have been gestures by the Indonesian authorities. There has been the release of some individuals associated with this cause. But all of them should be released. In particular, Xanana Gusmao should be released without any conditions. There should not be a requirement that he admit his guilt in resisting the Indonesian authorities. There should not be a requirement that he adhere to any particular solution that Indonesia desires.It is important that Indonesia actively associate itself with a number of human rights conventions. Amongst those that Indonesia should sign are the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The time is certainly now for the Indonesian authorities to press beyond the minimal reforms that have occurred in the last few weeks. It is time they repudiated the use of torture. It is time they put their name to these international conventions. It is time they associated themselves with the human rights principles that this country adheres to.Parallel with this is the future of the country, and, whilst Australia has given de jure recognition, the Indonesian authorities should consider the rest of the world's views on this matter. The United Nations has never recognised their occupation of the country. The United Nations has certainly given them no comfort in its analysis of what happened since 1979, when Indonesian forces, under the pretext of supposed civil war or internal civil dissent, intervened in the military sense.There has to be a recognition by the Indonesians that the time is over when they can be protected by the ASEAN countries on a policy of non-interference in internal matters. The time is over when they can avoid giving the Timorese people some say by way of plebiscite. Whether it comes at a certain point after giving it special status is a point not to be debated. The time is overdue for the Timorese people to have some say in their future.15:27:005545Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—I rise to speak on this motion brought before the parliament by the member for Calare (Mr Andren) at a time of great change in Indonesia's political and economic structure. I would say to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) that this is probably the best chance in 25 years that the East Timorese have had for a lot more say in what is happening within their own community.Indonesia's proximity to the Northern Territory means that events there impact on the social and economic life of many Territorians. Many Territorians have family and business connections in East Timor and in Indonesia. I can remember quite well—it was just after cyclone Tracy—that a lot of people from East Timor came as refugees to the Northern Territory and to other parts of Australia. I understand that the Australian government is using the opportunity presented by the significant political change in Indonesia to urge the Indonesian government to make some progress on the issue of East Timor. I believe it is very important that they use this opportunity to start a dialogue with all parties concerned about the future of East Timor.I know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) has said in this place that the Australian government is of the view that the military presence in East Timor should be reduced and that the people of East Timor should have a greater say in the management of their own affairs. The Minister is working to urge the Indonesian government to make the sorts of changes Australians would like to see. However, while we can express our opinions and outline our concerns to foreign governments, there is little we can do to force another country to undertake reforms. This is a matter for the Indonesian government and the people.I am heartened by the announcement by President Habibie of the introduction of a five-year plan to revamp Indonesia's human rights processes. This action plan will include an education process for government officials in dealing with the rights of individuals. The plan has four components: the ratification of human rights agreements, the dissemination of information and education on human rights, measures to address human rights issues determined as national priorities and the implementation of ratified international human rights agreements. The Indonesian government has pledged to protect all citizens regardless of their race, ethnicity, language, religion or political persuasion. This is a positive step and we will be watching these developments closely.Bishop Belo has recently stated that he believes the Indonesian government will gradually withdraw the troops in East Timor. His discussions with President Habibie have led Bishop Belo to believe that reform is possible in the territory. I hope he is right. Indonesia's foreign minister, Ali Alatas, has stated that Indonesia may be prepared to offer East Timor special status in an attempt to resolve the problems. The Indonesian government is prepared to enter discussions with United Nations negotiators to formulate a system of autonomy for the region.I welcome the recent release of political prisoners by President Habibie and I am hopeful that this will continue. I understand that 15 prisoners have been released in recent weeks. I am also aware that President Habibie is carefully considering the future of other well-known East Timorese political prisoners, including Xanana Gusmao. The Australian government would welcome the release of Xanana Gusmao and other activists as a step towards the resolution of the East Timor issue. However, I understand that this may be conditional on discussions relating to political freedoms being extended to the East Timorese. I note the scepticism of many East Timorese activists of the sincerity of the Indonesian government's proposals. However, as I said in my opening statement, I think this is the best chance that any of them have had in the last 25 years.I would like to point out that I believe the Indonesian government is seriously addressing the issue of the future of East Timor and I look forward to a result in the near future that satisfies all parties. The fact that these reforms have come only one month after President Habibie took over in Indonesia leaves me optimistic about the future of human rights in that country. Like the member for Calare, I also welcome the decision by the Indonesian government to consider an investigation into the deaths of the five journalists in East Timor in 1975, announced by Justice Minister Muladi on 1 June 1998. This has always been a bone of contention in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia and I hope that, with the support of the Indonesian government, we will be able to find out what really happened all those years ago.In conclusion, I commend the member for Calare for bringing this matter before the parliament at such an important time in Indonesia's political history. I am optimistic about progress and will be watching developments with interest.15:32:005547Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Like the honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) and a number of other members in this place, I have had a fairly long involvement in the question of East Timor—going back in my case as far as 1975. My involvement ranged across a number of activities including participation in political activities and demonstrations and, more recently, speaking at those demonstrations. I also have the privilege to represent quite a substantial East Timorese population, as does the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas), who has just spoken. One of the key things that I have said recently when I have spoken at demonstrations is that the solution ultimately to the East Timorese question would come as a result of change within Indonesia. I note that there are a number of people in the gallery who have been activists in the East Timorese cause and who would have been at some of those demonstrations. In some respects it looks likely that my words are being proven true quicker than even I anticipated. We are seeing events beginning to unfold which I believe will eventually lead to what is clearly necessary and what has always been necessary in the East Timorese question and that is a genuine act of self-determination on the part of the East Timorese people. I applaud the efforts over so many years of the people who have kept alive the battle for justice for the East Timorese in this country and elsewhere—some of whom, as I said, are present in the gallery today.On this issue we in Australia are indeed prisoners of our history; prisoners of the fact that when the invasion of East Timor occurred in December 1975 we were in the midst of a constitutional crisis and an election campaign and, unfortunately, effectively did nothing to avert that invasion. We are prisoners of the fact that we gave de jure recognition to the Indonesian conquest in 1978, signed the Timor Gap Treaty over East Timorese oil in the late 1980s and continued to provide military training for Indonesian officers. We are still seeing substantial human rights abuses in East Timor even today. Just recently we have seen another person die. I commend to honourable members the East Timor Human Rights Centre report that has just been circulated, which indicates how these problems continue to this day.We now, however, do have a historic opportunity to finally do something to address this issue. It is very important that Australia play a major role in ensuring that there is a just resolution to the East Timor question. President Habibie, the new President of Indonesia, has released some prisoners and there is now a genuine and open debate occurring in Indonesia on human rights issues and the nature of a future Indonesian democracy. There is clearly a new mood afoot in Indonesia which we should capitalise on and continue to remind them that Indonesia will not be able to stand proud amongst the nations of the world as a genuinely just and democratic nation until it resolves the East Timor question.This requires them first to release Xanana Gusmao unconditionally and to undertake serious negotiations with him and other leaders of the East Timorese people, such as Bishop Belo, on the question of the future status of East Timor. It is the Labor Party's position and my position that we do not believe that a resolution of this issue is likely to be possible without some form of genuine self-determination, which should have occurred back in the mid-1970s and needs to occur as soon as possible to allow final and full resolution of the issue. It may well be that we see some form of association with Indonesia emerge as a result of a genuine act of self-determination and negotiation by East Timorese leaders that leaves East Timor less than fully independent, for a range of reasons. That is entirely a matter for the East Timorese people.I note with some concern that recently we have seen the emergence of supposed pro-integration, pro-Indonesian forces on the streets in Dili engaged in potential conflict with pro-independence forces. It is interesting to see that development. It is disturbing and I would ask questions about the precise origins of these forces and what their agenda actually is.Australia should be involved in putting substantial pressure on Indonesia now that the opportunity has arisen to release Xanana Gusmao and engage in serious dialogue and negotiations about a final conclusion to this very sad and sorry affair in our region. Australia should be putting pressure on Indonesia to withdraw its troops to allow the East Timorese people to take a much more substantial interim role in their own governance, their own activities and their own economic development. Australia should ensure that some strategy for reconciliation be pursued which does at least create the possibility that alternatives of association and some degree of friendship can be there for the future, rather than prolonged enmity, hatred and bitterness, which clearly have very substantial reasons for existing. Australia is very well positioned to correct its previous mistakes and to put pressure on Indonesia to finally give justice to the people of East Timor. (Time expired)15:37:005548Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—First of all, let me commend the honourable member for Calare (Mr Andren) for his motion before the House today. It is a commendable motion. Like everybody else in this place, I welcome the strong bipartisan nature of this debate on the points that he has made in that motion.I do not think anybody either in this place or the other place or anybody involved in the political spectrum in Australia welcomes what happened two decades ago in East Timor. Nevertheless, it is now part of sovereign Indonesia and it is for the Indonesians and the East Timorese to solve the problem. Australia can apply pressures, and there is no doubt that East Timor is a deeply divided and troubled place.The bipartisan nature of this debate, of course, strengthens Australia's approach to the bilateral relationship with Indonesia. Here is an opportunity—as indeed has happened from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) down—to make sure that the East Timorese have the ability and the wherewithal to make their case. It is very pleasing to consider—as indicated in this motion—what, in fact, is possible in the coming months as a result of a change of administration in Jakarta.A satisfactory resolution of the problems will require dialogue not only with the government in Jakarta but also amongst the East Timorese themselves. The Australian government does not think that there are simplistic solutions to this problem; it is a delicate, very complex situation. Nevertheless, it is something that we should not shy away from and we should provide the appropriate support we can as a nation in our bilateral relationship with Indonesia.We have made it very clear that the strength of that bilateral relationship includes the ability of Australia from time to time to be critical of the Republic of Indonesia on some of these issues. There is no doubt that is what this government—from the foreign minister down—has done, and I have to say that in the previous administration there were criticisms made as well. The strength of our bilateral relationship is the degree to which we have the ability to objectively criticise things that are abhorrent to everybody, irrespective of the sovereign country to which one belongs.The Australian government particularly welcomes the discussions between President Habibie and Bishop Belo and agrees that these talks hopefully will lead to resolution of the issues in East Timor. I have to agree with the honourable member for Aston (Mr Nugent) who drew attention to Minister Muladi's comments and put a caveat on what he had to say about strong legal evidence. I do not want to start the hares running and to put a stopper on anything that might happen, but I think we have to be realistic about this and understand that there is a lot of groundwork to be done before substantive progress can be made.The Australian government has continuously argued for a reduction in the military presence in East Timor. It is pleasing, of course, that the President has indicated that he is prepared to reduce the number of troops in East Timor and indeed to explore avenues of greater autonomy in that particular region. I am very pleased to provide support to the commendable motion of the honourable member for Calare. Let us hope that in the interests of stability in this region, particularly for the East Timorese people, this situation can be resolved peacefully and quickly.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.5549Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Mr Eoin Cameron:That the House:(1) acknowledges the contribution of palliative care to the proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(2) recognises the work of health professionals and volunteers in the field of palliative care and commends those workers for their commitment to patients, the compassion with which they undertake their work and the commitment they have to palliative care as a proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(3) acknowledges the benefits to patients, families and health care providers of palliative care;(4) further recognises the benefits to both patients and families of palliative care provided to patients in their home rather than at medical institutions;(5) urges the Government to continue the provision of funds to palliative care with a view to increasing funding to palliative care provided at home in particular; and(6) implores the Government to investigate the merit of encouraging the provision of palliative care at the patient's home, and the funding for this, in view of the benefits for both the patient and their family as well as the Government.15:42:005549Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased to speak on the motion submitted by the member for Stirling, Mr Eoin Cameron, on palliative care. I notice in his contribution he suggested that perhaps he did not have a conflict of interest, notwithstanding the fact that his daughter was a palliative care nurse. I concur with that view. In the same spirit, I want to say that my wife is involved in the Governor Phillip Day Hospital, and one of the most frustrating things I find is respecting the confidences entrusted to me as a husband, rather than as a member, about the frustra tions of wanting to provide a first-class service to the elderly.I think all those involved in the delivery of services to the elderly—and this is no less and probably more so in palliative care—really do have a special gift. I examine my soul from time to time and reluctantly find that it is not one of the gifts that were handed out to me. Some argue that very few were, and who am I to disagree with that?The other area of conflict, of course, is that I was chairman of the local committee agitating for the Mount Druitt Hospital and was pleased, once it was open, to serve as deputy chairman to both Bishop Murphy and Bishop Heather. There was no more pleasing thing for me to see, just before this two-week session of parliament started, than the opening of the Reverend Sister Christina Harcombe Palliative Care Unit.The focus of palliative care is neither to hasten nor postpone death. It provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms and integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of care. Furthermore, it offers a support system to help relatives and friends cope during the patient's illness, and bereavement.One of the many good things the Labor government did was to announce in 1993-94 a four-year program to provide palliative care costing some $55 million. Of course, in 1998 that agreement has run out, and it is disturbing to hear the government claim that it is providing new palliative care money whereas in reality it is part of that ongoing program. The unit that has been opened provides 16 palliative care beds. The idea is to provide choice for families and choice for the patient. It will be not only the centre, if you like, of the acute delivery of care but also a 24-hour support system, including community nursing care, with access to allied health professionals so that the patients can be supported not only in the unit but more particularly at home. That was a particular thrust of the member for Stirling, and I am very pleased to see in the opening of this palliative care unit under the Carr Labor government that the thrust of the member's motion has indeed been picked up. It is a matter of regret to me that in the western suburbs of Sydney we have so few palliative care units.Like the member for Stirling, I think one of the most difficult debates that members participated in was on the Kevin Andrews bill on euthanasia. Much was made of those who, like me, voted against the euthanasia bill but focused on the need to improve palliative care services. It is really incumbent on both sides, as this motion tends to indicate, that we do not accept the status quo but rather increase the funding. Reverend Christina Harcombe was someone known to me. She was the religious coordinator at the hospital for many years. I am very pleased that her particular contribution to Mount Druitt Hospital has been recognised in this way. Unfortunately, she is not in a position to understand the honour her service has attracted. (Time expired)15:47:005550Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—In the past decade, the words `palliative care' and `hospice' have found a new place in the lexicon of health care in Australia. To palliate is to relieve; hence the use of the term `palliative care' to describe the provision of pain relieving care for people with terminal illnesses such as cancer, debilitating conditions like motor neurone disease and some respiratory and circulatory illnesses.Palliative care is delivered by a health care team. It concentrates on the quality of life and alleviating pain and other distressing symptoms. It aims neither to hasten nor postpone death, but to ensure that the person is cared for in a holistic manner, with dignity and without pain. It addresses the psychological and pastoral needs of patients, their families and carers, and supports these people in their bereavement.Palliative care is delivered in both hospices, that is, special hospitals for the dying, and at home. The development of palliative care is one of the most unremarked aspects of health care in Australia, but I believe it is one of the most important. In a sense, the modern development of palliative care is a return to one of the traditional roles of health care. The Order of Malta, which supports hospices at Caritas Christi in Melbourne and Mount Olivet in Brisbane, was established as a hospice- infirmary for pilgrims to Palestine by the armies of the First Crusade before the taking of Jerusalem in 1099. Indeed, next year marks the 900th anniversary of the provision of hospice services throughout the world by this organisation.The renewed interest in palliative care reflects the work of two significant women. One, Dr Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, began to break down the taboos about death and dying with a series of books, beginning in the 1970s, the most notable of which is entitled On Death and Dying. The other, Dame Cicely Saunders, provided a model for modern palliative care with her remarkable work at St Christopher's Hospice in London.Regrettably, as other members have indicated, palliative care has trailed the more glamorous fields of modern scientific medicine for some time. But this is changing, both in the training of doctors and nurses and in the provision of services. The Commonwealth government has provided more than $25 million a year in funding of palliative care through Medicare schedule G and the palliative care program. The palliative care program was designed to maximise the quality of life of people suffering a terminal illness, to avoid inappropriate hospital admissions and to provide support for families and carers. The funding has also allowed some states to review and improve the delivery of their palliative care services. I note that the principles for the new Australian health care agreements between the Commonwealth and the states provide for the continuation of this funding under one stream.Having served on the board of a hospice for some years, and having witnessed the remarkable work of the medical and nursing staff, and the many volunteers who contribute their time, their energy and their caring to outreach home hospice services, I can attest to the remarkable work undertaken by these people for the community. I am honoured to support the motion of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron). In doing so, I note that 12-18 July is National Palliative Care Week in Australia. I hope that more Australians learn of these valuable health services, and I urge both the Commonwealth and state governments to continue to support palliative care services through the provision of adequate funding.Palliation is not just about people with cancer, and not just for people with terminal illnesses such as AIDS. Palliation is about helping people end their days with comfort and dignity, providing support and compassion to the dying as well as strength and solace to grieving family and friends. Few activities could be more valuable. I too commend the motion to the House.15:52:005551Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I am sure that when members speak on this private member's motion relating to palliative care their thoughts go to their own friends and relatives who have found it necessary to receive this form of care in their final years. I would hope that the six points contained in this private member's motion will encourage this government and future governments to ensure that adequate funds are available for this type of care. I refer to the definition of palliative care as defined by the Australian Community Health Association:Palliative care refers to the physical, emotional, spiritual and social care of individuals with a progressive incurable illness and their families and carers.This type of care was provided originally for people with cancer where death was imminent. However, more recently palliative care is being offered to people who have a variety of incurable diseases and who may be early on in the course of their illness; for example, people who are living with HIV/AIDS and those with end-stage organ failure.In the same document, Health outcomes: the case of palliative care, we are advised that palliative care incorporates a blend of skills from several health care disciplines. It also recognises that dying is more than a collection of symptoms of disease; it is a complex physical and spiritual process. It is acknowledged that families, carers and patients are all involved in the process and should be incorporated in the plan of care. Palliative care is an acknowledgment that death is not a medical failure but a part of life. Through adequate support of palliative care services, the crisis of death can be lessened for the patient, family and friends.I am further indebted to information contained in a book entitled Euthanasia: should we kill the dying?, by Dr Brian Pollard, for the following insight into the appropriate care for people who are seriously ill. It made the point that, at a certain advanced stage of serious illness, the type of medical treatment changes from the hope of curing the patient to treatment that relieves their physical and emotional distress and the imparting of detailed information to the patient. Dr Pollard's list of components of palliative care are: control of physical symptoms, emotional support and communication, respecting the patient's wishes, teamwork and the family.I would like to make a brief comment on the control of physical symptoms. Dr Pollard makes some interesting points relating to providing palliative care for cancer patients. While cancer is not the most common cause of death, it is a disease that may eventually lead to death and is therefore associated in the public mind with fear about its future course. He suggests that most of medicine's most powerful weapons against cancer are themselves capable of producing disability and distress, and their usefulness is generally limited to prolonging life rather than curing the disease. He says that a significant part of cancer pain is due to the treatment of the disease.Of all the distresses of dying, pain is the most prominent and the most feared. According to Dr Pollard:There are very few pains of cancer which today cannot be either totally eliminated or brought to the point where the patient can bear the small amount of residual pain. While the relief of this residual pain may require the help of an expert, most cancer pain is well within the competence of any doctor to treat it effectively.I am pleased to advise that a new $1.8 million palliative care unit has recently been opened in the grounds of Mount Druitt Hospital. This unit will significantly enhance the quality of care for terminally ill patients in western Sydney. The unit will cater for patients who want to be cared for in their homes or in one of the unit's 16 in-patient beds. It is important that terminally ill patients have a choice of remaining in their own homes, surrounded by their families, with the knowledge that they have the support of experienced health professionals.I congratulate the New South Wales state government for its contribution to palliative care in western Sydney. The community and staff of Mount Druitt Hospital have raised $40,000 for special items of equipment, and the palliative care unit is one component of a $96 million redevelopment of health services in Mount Druitt and Blacktown.I am also pleased to refer to improvements in palliative care for our culturally diverse society. I refer to a special report in the autumn edition of Palliative Care News entitled `Improving palliative care in a multicultural environment.' This project sought to identify through consultation the needs and issues which impact on the care of patients and on their carers, service providers and ethnic community groups, and to identify models of palliative care services which are sensitive to cultural diversity. (Time expired)15:57:005552Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I am pleased to support this motion by the member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron). I know that many members on both sides of the House agree that palliative care is a very important health issue but, of course, it is much more than just a health issue. The care of patients with terminal illnesses is a unique and special task. We pay tribute in this motion to special people, both health professionals and volunteers, who perform this task with great dedication and commitment. I can only imagine how tough it is for them—not just the professional judgment required in making decisions on how best to care for their patient but also in being there to help their loved ones through a very emotional and difficult time.Much as we have become more open as a society in the 1990s and we discuss our feelings freely on a range of issues, death and dying is still a taboo subject in many respects. It is one of those things that we tend to gloss over and, inevitable as it is for each of us, I think we live our lives with an `it won't happen to me' attitude. Of course the debate on the issue of euthanasia—both in the community and in this place—has meant that we have focused more on the care of the dying.I have been moved by the debates on both sides of this argument, but the views put forward by both the honourable member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) and Senator John Herron—as doctors and as family men who have experienced this on a personal level—were to me the most compelling of all. What struck me was their firm belief that death is an important and very moving stage of life and that the strength of human spirit and the wide-ranging emotions experienced by both the patients and their families are vital parts of our rich human tapestry. I recognise that there are many exponents of euthanasia in my electorate, and they have very strong and valid views on this issue, but I do hope that they will agree with me that proper palliative care is a very viable alternative that allows dignity and relief from pain without the notion that life is disposable and without placing an onerous burden on someone who is under great physical and emotional duress.Many of the horror stories of painful death that are put forward by supporters of euthanasia are cases where proper palliative care had not been available. I understand that there were no palliative care facilities at all in the Northern Territory. I am not saying that palliative care is some sort of panacea for all pain, but it is a way to ensure that dying patients are afforded proper care and pain management.I think the problem has been that state and federal governments in the past have seen palliative care funding as something of a waste. The aim of medicine after all is to treat, with the ultimate goal of curing the patient. If that cannot be achieved then I think there is a school of thought that says, `Why spend valuable dollars on patients who simply cannot be cured?' But any compassionate society must view palliative care very differently. I wholeheartedly support this motion that we look at providing more funds for palliative care, particularly in people's homes. I was very distressed recently to hear of constituents of mine who would dearly have loved to have their father die in their home but, because of administration problems, they were not afforded that opportunity. I will fight all I can to make sure that that changes in the future.Our $280 million staying at home package for the care of the frail elderly acknowledges that people prefer to be at home to being at a hospital or institution. That is particularly true of people who are dying. Home is a personal place where they can spend time with their families in familiar surroundings. I note that many palliative care facilities do encourage their patients to spend time at home for short periods but, inevitably, they must return for treatment.I very much support this motion that we fund a program which allows for full and proper treatment in the patients' homes, providing of course that they have the necessary support and care from their loved ones. It is a commonsense approach that puts the needs of the patient first and will also be considerably less expensive than the high cost involved in the upkeep of a place in hospital. It would be entirely in keeping with our government's practical and innovative approach to so many issues that were simply left in the too-hard basket by the previous government. We have maintained funding for palliative care that was scheduled to finish under Labor and I believe the whole issue of palliative care deserves our close attention. I commend this motion to the house and I am pleased to lend my strong support to the member for Stirling's effort in this important matter.16:02:005553Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate proposed by the member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron). Caring for a loved one who is passing through the last stages of life is a time of great stress, emotion and anxiety for everybody that is involved. More people are being provided with health care services in their homes than in hospital or other health care institutions, and this is particularly the case with palliative care. Caring for someone with a terminal illness in their own home makes life just that little bit easier during their remaining time and provides their family with added comfort before their loved one passes on.Palliative care is particularly resource intensive and requires a lot of time and effort by both health care workers and family carers for the person who is dying. Provision of palliative care by community health services tends to be underrecognised compared to the care provided by specialist palliative care teams. By offering palliative care at home, community health services offer an important choice for people who wish to die at home. One such community health service provider that offers this option for palliative care is the New South Wales Community Health Association. They are holding their annual conference in Newcastle on 18 and 19 September this year. The community health care program was initiated by the Whitlam government and we hope that, at that conference, former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam will be able to find the time to address or even just be at the conference to provide encouragement and a morale boost.One important consideration is the person's choice to have care from non-religious providers, because currently most specialist palliative care is provided by religious organisations and mainly within metropolitan areas. Community health services also increase access to palliative care to more people who are dying and need this care. The Hunter Area Health Service community health division is one local group that offers this option for care in my region. Specialist palliative care services generally provide care only to people who have an identified terminal illness, such as cancer, HIV and AIDS, whereas community health services provide care to any person who wishes to depart this life in their own home. This includes older people who are no longer capable of caring for themselves and who would prefer to stay in their own home rather than go into a nursing home.I want to see increased funding for palliative care, along with the consideration also of the needs of carers. Carers are absolutely integral to the care of people dying at home. These carers are not eligible for domiciliary nursing care benefits, as this would require the carer to be present 24 hours a day. As families and volunteers often share the palliative care, no one person is present for 24 hours a day. This small payment would make life easier for both the carers and the person receiving the care. Some of the medications required towards the end of the care—for example, hyoscine, which helps dry up excessive secretions and ensures the comfort of both the person dying and their carers—are very expensive and hence are not in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.Care provided at home is an essential part of the overall health service which we provide. It is a cost-effective alternative to care institutions and is preferred by many people who are dying. Because of the intensive nature of the care required, thought must be given to increasing the funding for palliative care, particularly to community health services, to provide this care in partnership with general practitioners and specialist outreach palliative care services.In the proposed health care agreements, this government claims to be expanding the funding for mental health and palliative care. However, the so-called new money for these services is simply a continuation of existing funding. It is not new funding at all; it is a heartless ruse to claim that it is. The states say that this government's funding offer would result in more than one million extra patients being added to hospital waiting lists and that these waiting lists would prevent the extension of palliative care to people in their homes. Without additional funding for palliative care, those patients with terminal illnesses would not have the alternative of spending their last weeks and days in their own homes with their families and loved ones around them.What this government has done is to double count the funding for mental health and palliative care. There is $479 million for mental health and palliative care in the current offer that was provided by the Commonwealth but not included in the previous Medicare agreement. Many of my constituents are forced to suffer as a result of the cut to dental services, aged care and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. But this government still has the audacity to claim that it is offer ing adequate health funding. To decrease rather than increase the funding for palliative care is a heartless move, a move which is causing anguish, pain and suffering to those who desperately need this care. The government should be ensuring that palliative care is extended to as many people as possible in their own homes, people who desperately need this care—people with cancer, with HIV or with AIDS and people in the last days of their lives who want to spend the remaining time with their families and friends in the familiar surroundings of their own homes. (Time expired)16:07:005554Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—It gives me much pleasure to rise and support this motion on palliative care. Home is where these people belong. It is where they are able to maintain some degree of control and retain their dignity. It is where intimacy is possible in their communications, their grieving, their expressions of affection and their spiritual activities. Home is where family can stay or come and go, and where loneliness is never a problem for the patient. One does not have to be terminally ill to realise how lonely a hospital can be. When one is suffering from an illness of any sort, hospitals can be very lonely and very unfriendly places.My younger daughter, while nursing in a private hospital in Brisbane during the late 1980s, became aware that many of the patients were admitted to the hospital to die. This worried her for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the lack of time she and the other staff were able to give these patients. She was also concerned with the lack of adequate training in palliative care that they received in connection with cases where more than just good nursing was needed. Also, there was the isolation of the patient from family, friends and neighbours. The hospital staff did what they could but, as my daughter saw it, the situation was barely adequate.Fortunately, in the last 10 years we have come a long way from those early experiences of that young registered nurse in a medical ward at a private hospital. We now have structured nursing courses in palliative care, as well as many organisations providing professional advice and support for both the patient and his or her carers. Such organisations provide professional expertise in encouraging terminally ill patients to stay at home with their families. Home is the place where these friends and neighbours can provide substantial help and support to both carer and patient.Two organisations providing dedicated palliative care in my constituency are Karuna and St Luke's Nursing Service. Both have recently told me of stories of families who have had a loved one die in the comfort of their own home. The loss of a loved one, no matter how prepared one is, is a sad time; however, both these accounts tell of the satisfaction of being able to provide the comfort of home to their family member. The family and friends are able to gather for the usual family functions, recognising birthdays and other special occasions, enabling the patient to participate. Not only does home care provide for the patient, but also the comings and goings of the other family members and friends give essential support and comfort to the household.Bert Errington writes in the Karuna Hospice News:I find it difficult to write of those weeks that followed the doctor's final sentence. We fought the inevitable, trying alternative medicine, diet and meditation. We decided if we did lose we would not be parted until the end. I did not realise how hard it would be to achieve that unwanted goal. We tried initially to manage by ourselves. Lizzie's mother, her sister-in-law and one of her oldest nursing friends. There were plenty of other volunteers, neighbours and friends who were willing to help. Sometimes embarrassing in their numbers.It became apparent very quickly that although we had many willing hands, we did not have the necessary skills to keep Lizzie comfortable and in as little pain as possible. The `specialist' had suggested the Karuna Hospice Service for palliative care. When contacted, they responded immediately with advice, nursing aid, overnight care and equipment we had no idea was available. That, one could be forgiven for thinking, was surely more than one could ask for. But I had no way of knowing how dedicated and passionate each new face that came through the door was to be. They were all different shapes and sizes, but they all had big hearts. Without their help we could not have kept Lizzie in the home she loved surrounded by people she cared for most. Elizabeth died with a wry smile on her face. I like to think she knew something pleasant was waiting on the other side or she was already telling one of her stories to whoever would listen.Similarly, St Luke's fondly remembers Joseph whom they had been visiting for three months before they received a call at 5 a.m. one morning to tend to him as he had begun to suffer greater pain and discomfort. With his family together in the bedroom and him resting more comfortably, Joseph turned to the St Luke's nurse and said, `I am confident with you here.'The Howard government recognises the need and the place that palliative care has. Currently the government is working in partnership with Palliative Care Australia, a non-government organisation that provides a national information service and help line. As a result, Dr Wooldridge will release on 13 July a national palliative care strategy which will significantly increase federal funding over the next five years towards improving Australia's palliative care services. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sittings.Grievance Debate5555Question proposed:That grievances be noted.555516:12:005555Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—A general grievance from many people in Australia over the last 40 years must surely be the lack of attention to balanced and complete infrastructure spending at all levels of government. I will try to explain what I mean by `complete' a little later.City engineers and state and federal transport ministers have largely suffered in silence, excluded from real power, and been subjected to the `advice'—if you could call it that—from a motley collection of bureaucrats and consultants and plans that somehow did not quite get completed. Take for example the standardisation of Australia's railway track from Brisbane to Perth, celebrated rightfully a couple of years ago. The concept of the transition from the inefficiencies of different gauges to standard gauge was celebrated, as I said, rightfully. But the celebrations are a bit flat really when passenger and freight trains between Melbourne and Adelaide have to slow down to speeds of 20 to 40 kilometres per hour on large sections of track in Victoria. I suspect the train was faster 100 years ago—and I know it was faster 50 years ago.The Commonwealth standardised the track, which is a good thing, but it did not do it properly. That story, as far as infrastructure is concerned, is repeated ad nauseam all over Australia—and some people wonder why people have lost faith in the political process. Certainly it is an old cliche, but most people subscribe to the adage that `if you do something, at least do it properly and completely'.Unfortunately, that does not seem to apply to rail infrastructure in Australia. Successive Australian governments for 80 years have promised to build a railway from Adelaide to Darwin, but still the Alice Springs to Darwin link remains unfinished. The coalition has promised $100 million to the project; the Labor opposition has promised $300 million. The message to politicians—not just from South Australians and also Territorians in your state, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the wider Australian electorate as well—is quite simple: build the dammed thing! Have a little faith. It will work. On defence grounds alone, it is justifiable. Get on with it, is the message. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that one-third of Australia's population lives in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. But why do so many people forget that two-thirds, the overwhelming majority, of Australians do not live there. Some people still do not seem to get the message.One bright spot, as far as infrastructure expenditure in Australia is concerned, was completed by a Labor government in Western Australia—and of course I refer to the northern suburbs railway. This is an overwhelming success, and congratulations are due to former ministers Bob Pearce, Julian Grill and Professor Peter Newman. They outfought, outwitted and beat all the knockers—and there were plenty of them—in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. But, unfortunately, that example in Western Australia does not fit the general pattern.The major industrial areas in Adelaide form a semi-circle arc from the Port of Adelaide at Outer Harbour through Port Adelaide, Wingfield, Dry Creek, Regency Park, Salisbury to General Motors-Holden at Elizabeth, taking in two federal Labor electorate seats of Port Adelaide and Bonython and two currently Liberal—probably next time Labor—seats of Adelaide and Makin. In this area during the last 10 years the federal Labor government, to its credit, completed three major road infrastructure projects. The Port Wakefield highway was duplicated, two lanes each way all the way from Gepps Cross to Port Wakefield; the South Road connector was built in 1994, connecting the Port Wakefield Road to the South Road; and the Salisbury Overway Bridge, connecting all of the above to the Salisbury Highway, was completed in 1996.They were great projects. Business, manufacturing industry and transport, in particular, increased their efficiency dividend. But the efficiency dividend, although increased, was not maximised. As is so often the case in Australia, one part of this infrastructure to complete what would be one of the best transport hubs in the world let alone Australia was not completed. That part—a state government responsibility but one which needs Commonwealth leadership and some money—is the third river opening rail and road crossing. This would connect a dual highway from the Port of Adelaide, Outer Harbour, bypassing the city of Port Adelaide by road and rail to link up with the South Road connector and the Dry Creek rail yards.The all-up cost is in the vicinity of $60 million to $80 million. Even if it were about $10 million more, it would still be a worthy project. The efficiency dividend for business would be enormous. The transport hub would be outstanding. Access to road, rail, airport and port would be second to none in this country. Sometimes this very fact seems to bring out prospective envy from other states, particularly from that fellow in Victoria called Mr Kennett. This aspect alone would prove very attractive for businesses to locate in my electorate. It is a boost that South Australia desperately needs.When the federal budget came down in May, one of the things I examined was the roads of national importance program in the Transport and Regional Development portfolio. I understand that the Liberal state minister, Diana Laidlaw, and the Major of Port Adelaide/Enfield, Johanna McCluskey, had lobbied the minister on this particular project, and I was hopeful that a decision would at last be made. What a disappointment. Not only was the third river opening road and rail bridge crossing sadly overlooked but not one dollar of national roads of importance funding was coming to South Australia—not one measly dollar. Two-thirds of Australia's population live outside Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra, but that very real fact seems to be overlooked by this federal government whilst the state government in South Australia consumes itself with leadership divisions. For the time being, heavy industrialised traffic will continue all so slowly to rumble through the streets of Port Adelaide, inefficiently delivering a dividend in transport, hampering local efforts to breathe life back into the heart of the port and its suburbs and not completing what would be one of the best transport hubs in the world.For the record, I repeat that South Australia did not receive one dollar from the roads of national importance program. On this particular matter Premier Olsen, his transport minister, Diana Laidlaw, and all the Liberal federal members have so far failed to convince the federal coalition of the most urgent infrastructure needs for South Australia. We did not get two submarines by the way either. It is not only transport and business that would benefit from the third river opening road and rail crossing. Port Adelaide has more historic buildings preserved but not yet fully utilised than any other port city in Australia. It is a gold mine being rediscovered but held back because investors in waterfront housing and development are rightfully deferring investment until they are certain that the third river opening rail and road bridge will go ahead. Port Adelaide needs a critical mass of some 3,000 to 4,000 people again living within its historic precincts to breathe some life back into its considerable retail, financial, shipping, manufacturing, educational and transport heart. Some 140 houses are currently in the process of being built on the upper reaches of the river. Those developments need to be duplicated over and over again. Wharf shed two has been removed, opening up the soon to be built wharf development at Lipson Street in Port Adelaide.They are indeed most welcome developments, but they are just a beginning, as were the Port Adelaide TAFE and markets built on the waterfront adjacent to the Birkenhead Bridge, on which heavy truck traffic should be removed and in a time sooner than most imagine will for several reasons have to be closed to heavy traffic. I hope it is not because a disaster occurs. Retail and leisure developments, like movie theatres, restaurants and niche strip shopping, are urgently required on Commercial Road from Dale Street to the Black Diamond Corner to Church Place on St Vincent Street. The third river opening rail and road bridge will be just the catalyst to secure that necessary investment.I began this speech stating that too often in Australia infrastructure projects are not fully completed, thus minimising the efficiency dividends that I believe taxpayers demand and this country needs. The third river opening road and rail bridge in my electorate of Port Adelaide, affecting the electorates of Bonython, Adelaide, Hindmarsh and Makin, is a prime example of continued partial failures of governments at both the federal and the state levels.I hope that this government or the next—hopefully Labor—applies 20/20 vision, a dose of commonsense and a bit of intellect to this particular matter. If so, then we can look forward to a model transport hub at least being set up in Australia that just might be the appropriate model to transfer something that we can learn to larger hubs in the eastern states. Mr Deputy Speaker Dondas, I remain forever the optimist. However, I do know, as I suspect you do, living in the Northern Territory, that out there in the electorate patience is wearing very thin and infrastructure projects once touted by governments and oppositions alike ought to be completed. One I hope that you would agree with is the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. One for me in my electorate in South Australia and for South Australian industry and manufacturing, in particular, is the third river opening bridge crossing in Port Adelaide. (Time expired)555816:22:005558Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—In this debate today I will speak on two issues that are important to my electorate of Eden-Monaro. The first relates to access to SBS television and the second relates to the Eden regional forest agreement. SBS TV, ABC TV, three commercial channels and now pay TV are all services that are taken for granted in city areas and many of the larger regional towns. Today, a petition signed by 1,607 constituents of Eden-Monaro, predominantly from the far South Coast, was tabled here in parliament. That petition called on the government to provide SBS TV to the Bega Valley Shire area.Services to rural and regional areas have been receiving fairly prominent attention in recent times and for good reason. So much that is taken for granted in the larger cities just is not available in rural areas, or if it is people have to travel to access it, or the particular service is of a lower quality or lower frequency. Many services start as a luxury but end up as part of everyday life and SBS has also gone through that transition.SBS was first provided only in the large cities of Sydney and Melbourne, then progressively went to the other capital cities and regional towns which have a high ethnic population. But the diversity of programs on SBS quickly improved and soon it was sought by all Australians. Prior to the 1996 election the coalition gave a commitment to spend $10.5 million in our first three years to extend SBS to more Australians as part of a commitment to extend it to all Australians. We are meeting that commitment and I emphasise that it is an acceleration of the SBS coverage from that which occurred under the previous government.For example, in its last four years in government, the Labor Party spent $9.5 million extending SBS. Spending $10.5 million in our first three years is a considerable acceleration. However, that extension has not reached those parts of my electorate currently without SBS and that constitutes a significant area. Only Queanbeyan, Cooma and Berridale have SBS coverage, along with some isolated pockets at the northern end of the coastal part of my electorate.The petition that I tabled earlier came about as a result of community debate, which also included a public meeting in Merimbula in May. I attended that public meeting, along with some 250 other people who were there to express their support for the extension of SBS. I have great sympathy with these people and the many others in my electorate who cannot access SBS. I feel particularly for those soccer fans who are currently missing out on the World Cup coverage. Only a couple of days ago, I received a letter from young Simon White who wrote:I am 10 years old and I am interested in the World Cup. Please ask the government to bring SBS to the Bega Valley.It really is a great shame that some of the commercial television stations which were offered the coverage by SBS did not take that offer up.We made great headway in improving telecommunications in the last couple of years throughout regional Australia. For instance, all telephone exchanges in New South Wales are now digital. This means easier access to things like fax lines, the Internet, voice mail, et cetera. Networking the Nation is opening up all sorts of possibilities for regional Australia. So, regarding telecommunications, we have done a mountain of work, and there is more to come as we continue to put substantial funds into regional telecommunications infrastructure. We need, similarly, to continue to improve radio and television broadcasting facilities, and that includes SBS.We have accelerated the extension of SBS since coming to government and, on behalf of all the constituents of Eden-Monaro who do not have access to SBS, I have made a number of representations to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) to put our case strongly for a further acceleration of that access so that people in regional Australia have access to SBS just like their city counterparts.The other matter I want to raise is the regional forest agreement for which submissions closed last Friday on the various scenarios put forward. I prepared a submission commenting on those scenarios which I want to summarise today. First of all, I support the broad principles of the forest policy statement. However, I do have a number of concerns as to how those principles have been put into practice in the process in this Eden RFA. While all of the various studies have been undertaken and therefore, in theory, the processes have followed a scientific approach, the reality is something else. I am particularly concerned that the economic and social assessment studies became almost an afterthought in the process.While it may be argued that, nonetheless, they were done and have been taken into account, the fact that they were the last cab off the rank has meant that that aspect has played second fiddle to conservation issues in the broader public debate. We should not underestimate the importance of the public debate in this process. We have seen, over the last couple of years, a far greater emphasis on the conservation issues as the various flora and fauna studies were carried out. Meanwhile, economic and social impacts were continually seen as anecdotal as the research had not been done. By the time those studies were done the public debate was already making decisions about the conservation outcomes.The most serious aspect of the process, which was in fact a breach of the agreed methodology, was the New South Wales government's declaration of national parks part of the way through. That single, politically motivated action undermined the credibility of the process and signalled to the public that the process was not really based on science. The Premier not only pre-empted the final agreement by declaring further national parks but also put pressure on stakeholders that he expected a further 33,000 hectares to be added in the final agreement. No other RFA has been conducted under such intimidation. Effectively, the New South Wales government has limited the debate and, consequently, the general public thinks it is a choice of reserving between 20,000 and 60,000 hectares, depending on the option. The national parks already declared are part of this RFA and should be taken into account in any final agreement.Scenario A is referred to as the `extreme green option'. This scenario undoubtedly would see the closure of the hardwood industry in the south-east, and along with it would go the communities which rely heavily on it. The Harris-Daishowa woodchip mill has indicated it could close as a result of the implementation of scenario A. Such a result would mean the loss of 500 direct jobs and probably a further 500 jobs indirectly. Scenario A really has to be rejected outright. It does not follow science; it includes areas in Coolangubra, for instance, which did not meet the flora criteria. So it cannot be considered at all.Scenario B is a scenario put forward by the New South Wales government. It increases sawlog quotas slightly and pulpwood quotas slightly but, once again, would see the demise of the hardwood industry and along with it its communities. This scenario also includes this area of Coolangubra and does not meet the criteria put forward in fact by National Parks and Wildlife, which are now promoting this option. It is not a true balance and it also should be rejected. Scenario C has been put forward by part of the industry. There are some participants in the industry who do not actually fully support it. It provides 26,000 cubic metres of sawlogs, but unfortunately it relies upon changes in management protocols to get that 26,000. I see 26,000 as the minimum required to maintain jobs in the area. It is not guaranteed and I do not think those protocols would be changed.Scenario D, as put forward by the Commonwealth, would guarantee 26,000 cubic metres of sawlogs and 363,000 tonnes of pulpwood, based on current conservation protocols. It would give that least number of sawlog quotas necessary to maintain the existing jobs. I believe that there is a justifiable argument for 29,500. That is what was guaranteed originally by the New South Wales government verbally and ultimately in writing as well. Scenario D is the minimum that we need and that is what I am putting forward. Prior to the 1995-96 interim forest agreement, the sawlog quota for Eden was 59,000 cubic metres, so you can see how much we have come down. We need to maintain those jobs.In the view of large numbers of my constituents, the hardwood industry and the communities that rely on it have suffered unfairly in the ideological battle that has taken place over the last decade. The pendulum has swung too far and it is time that the social impact was given a higher priority. I urge both governments to have a scenario which meets this level of 29,500 cubic metres. (Time expired)556016:32:005560Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I grieve today for the vast majority of Australians, who are suffering under what can only be described as the heartless indifference of this government towards the Australian community. The Australian community does feel betrayed by a government which promised so much: it promised to be a government for all of us; it promised to make us all feel relaxed and comfortable, yet neither of those things have occurred. As I move about the electorate, especially with my Saturday morning mobile offices, no-one comes to me and says they feel relaxed and comfortable. They have only to look at the track record of this government to see the damage that has been done to this community over the last 2¼ years.Without seeking to score a political point, I would endorse the comments attributed to my colleague on the other side the member for Dunkley, Bruce Billson, who I believe did speak for all of us when, as reported in the Age of 24 June last week, he said to his party room meeting the day before that the government should `stand up for suburban Australia'. I would endorse those sentiments, having the privilege of representing an electorate of similar location and similar demographics to Dunkley. It is somewhat heartening for me to realise that not all coalition members adhere to what can only be described as the scorched earth policy of the front bench opposite, polices which are so easily pursued by Mr Billson's government in general.Again, as I do move around I find there are some recurring issues: health, unemployment, education and child care. People increasingly, as they become more and more economically literate, are beginning to understand the economic fundamentals which plague this nation. They do realise that it is in fact the current account, in addition to many of the issues I have just cited, which is of paramount importance to their living standards and the maintenance of those standards. That is what is confronting the government today.This current account is expected to blow out from some $18 billion in 1996-97 to $31 billion in 1998-99. Under attack, largely from foreign speculators, the Australian dollar can at best be described as precariously poised. Our consumption spending is growing faster than national production. Indeed, we see the growth of private investment dropping and the ratio of household savings to household disposable incomes falling from 4.7 per cent in 1996-97 to an estimated 2.8 per cent in 1998-99. I have quoted those figures from a recent article in the Age by Kenneth Davidson.Yet it seems that all this government is hell-bent on doing is talking about how its surpluses may be available for some future reduction in the tax rate; that is, a tax cut. It is really as if the budget deficits of more than 10 years ago were—as Davidson would say—the cause rather than the consequence of the 1991 recession. Most economists would tell you that if the budget deficit did not blow out during recessionary times, thereby stimulating the economy by pumping more money into it, as a natural corollary any recession under those circumstances would indeed be exacerbated and be far worse because without these what automatic stabilisers, as I have called them before, built into budgets then in what Davidson has described as advanced industrial countries in the post-World War II era the recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s could have become economic disasters, indeed on the scale of the 1930s Great Depression.The serious issue confronting Australians today is not the budget deficit but plainly the current account. This is exacerbated in both the East Asian bloc and in our own nation by the huge volume of speculative capital that seems to circulate endlessly around the globe. If Australia is about to go into a recession—or perhaps even far worse—it is likely to emerge from the exposure to foreign speculation due to reliance on the foreign debt to finance this current account deficit rather than any difficulties with financing the budget. That is something that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has to acknowledge and acknowledge pretty quickly because it is those reasons of financial mismanagement, despite inheriting a economy which he described as better than good in parts—a high growth, low inflation economy—that are causing the average Australians whom I am meeting in the streets, mostly on Saturday mornings, considerable pain.My electorate of Isaacs has the highest number of children under four in child care in any electorate in this country. This is an area where this government has again failed to make this community relaxed and comfortable, because it has managed to cut some $1 billion from child-care funding. No amount of money that it has attempted to put back into child care in this most recent budget has gone anywhere near making up for the cuts that it inflicted on the electorate in its first two budgets. This has forced many children to be withdrawn from child care, placing the welfare of children at risk. It has forced many parents, mostly mothers, out of the work force because they are simply unable to afford decent quality child care.One could go on to speak about education. Similarly, as with child care, the government has ripped the heart out of education. Nationally, our respected and beloved TAFE system has endured a $240 million cut. Similarly, Austudy has been slashed by some $500 million.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—You're making all this up. It's not right.YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—Government schools have had funding cuts of up to $270 million.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—False!YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—HECS has cost tertiary students around $1.1 million. This government and Minister Kemp, who has deluded the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, who is at the table, and others on his frontbench by saying he tells the truth when he does not, would like to take this education system back to the bad old days when one's level of education was determined primarily by the level of one's personal wealth. Similarly—and I will conclude on this point—the government has let down our unemployed.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—It had better be good!YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—There is nothing good, Minister, about the level of unemployment in this country. In this government's first 26 months it presided over the creation of a mere 235,000 jobs, which is less than half the number of jobs that Labor had created in the same period before leaving office. In Labor's last 26 months of government—and the figures stand right there, issued by DEETYA—Labor created 549,000 jobs and the unemployment rate trend at that time was down by 2.2 per cent. One is reluctant somewhat to compare that with the current government that could achieve a trend in the unemployment rate—an important statistics—that was down by only 0.5 per cent.We have seen local unemployment in most parts of Isaacs rising sharply in the past two years. With the unemployment levels yet to bottom due to the impact of the Asian crisis, one can only despair for the unemployed in Isaacs and the other 147 electorates in the country, as indeed we despair for the many Australians who at the hands of this government are faced with child-care, education, aged care and health cuts of a magnitude rarely seen in this country.556216:42:005562Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I grieve for the people surrounding the Perth airport who are being treated as political pawns by the Labor Party and their apparatchiks. The Perth airport is again in the news today because the Perth airport's draft master plan is to be presented to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) on 1 July, this Wednesday. It is not the first time that the Perth airport has been in the news.One funny thing that strikes me at the moment is that the Labor Party have suddenly got interested in the Perth airport again. While they were in government for 13 years they pretended it was not there. In fact, the member for Brand (Mr Beazley), the former member for Swan, did all he could to play down any acknowledgment of the Perth airport and its effect on some of the surrounding residents. I was privileged to be a member of the planning committee of the City of Belmont, which largely houses the Perth airport. When Mr Beazley was the then minister, he came to the City of Belmont and was very keen to off-load the Perth airport and, to sweeten the deal, offered to throw in a couple of million dollars to get rid of Jandakot airport. That was their attitude to the airports at that stage. I can assure you that that can be verified.The main reason for the grievance today relates to the current draft plan. We do note that the Perth airport was sold on a long-term lease to the current owners of the airport, the Westralia Airports Corporation, who paid $600-odd million for the airport. But the politicisation of the airport by people with obvious agendas has caused there to be many submissions, and these have been based on incorrect assumptions.For the people present in the House, I would like to hold up a map of the details of the existing noise contours surrounding Perth airport. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you could actually see from where you are the flights paths that emanate from the 06/24 runway on this map—I have my suspicions as to who put this map out, by the way—you would see that it is a child's drawing. The flight paths are not practical. In fact, it has been said by those who know about planes and airports that one would have to be flying an FA18 to achieve some of the flight paths that have been described here. This map was abjectly put out to try to scare the people surrounding the Perth airport. Other anonymous letters have gone out. The one I am holding up now has `sold out' written over it. It raises a number of issues. It is signed by `A concerned resident'. They would not put their name to it. This is politicisation of the issues surrounding the Perth airport.I specifically want to address some of the measures involved in the draft master plan. Probably the most contentious of these is the proposal in the draft master plan to extend the 06/24 runway which runs south-east. It is a shorter runway, but Airservices Australia inform me that 747s could, under most conditions, land on this runway, as could the A320 Airbuses that are most commonly used. There seems very little justification for the extension of this runway. I am on the record as saying I do not believe it is appropriate. In fact, rather than building an extension to the 06/24 runway, the parallel runway should be proceeded with forthwith. This would take away the need to build an extension to the 06/24 runway.Yesterday, the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) and his sidekick, the Mayor of Bayswater, John D'Orazio, held a press conference with the Westralia Airports Corporation. They were pleased to have this joint press conference. There has been a complete turnaround by the member for Perth and his offsider, the Mayor of Bayswater. The Mayor of Bayswater was, by the way, the unsuccessful Labor candidate for the seat of Ballajura in the last election. That tells a little story, but the point is that these people have tried to engineer some thousands of standard letter responses against the extension of the 06/24 runway. Yesterday, with the Westralia Airports Corporation, they came out and endorsed it. My point is that they have sold out the rest of the shires and the interest groups around the Perth airport. The City of Belmont is alarmed by the sell-out that has happened.The City of Belmont also helped engineer many transcripts and standard letters to gain community support for the non-extension of this runway. These people were not consulted before this press conference. John D'Orazio is the chair of the Perth Airport Municipalities Group. He certainly did not get the endorsement of that group to make this announcement. The Shire of Kalamunda and the affected people in South Perth and Mundaring were not consulted. No-one else was consulted. There is a craven political stunt by those involved.I want to point out an article by Torrance Mendez which appears in the West Australian newspaper with the headline `Protesters stop runway plan'. At their press conference, the member for Perth and Mr D'Orazio came out with some absolutely farcical reasons as to why they now support the extension of the runway. The article quotes Mr Smith and Mr D'Orazio as saying that if four points are written into the master plan—I will address them as we go—they will then throw their weight behind the extension of the runway. All four points that they mention are currently in existence.The point that has to be made is that the inclusion of these measures in the draft master plan does not in any way guarantee the success of this runway. I was informed by the minister's office as recently as several minutes before I came into this chamber that the minister's approval of the draft master plan is not contingent on details like whether these people want to put conditions on the extension of the runway. The minister will either approve the runway or he will not. The details addressed by this lobby group might not be endorsed by another group. The minister has to take into account all the other people who have an interest in this matter. I want to address a couple of these points. The article in the West Australian says:Mr Smith said the potential for noisy flight paths over several suburbs unaffected by the noise had been eliminated.That is not true. Noise cannot be eliminated. When people live near an airport they are going to have noise, to some extent.Mr Smith also said:Restrictions on usage will be a condition for approving the extension.As I have said, that is not true. The minister does not do it that way. The minister will not grant approval for master plans on the basis of some deal that is made on the side with one of the local councils. The article goes on to say:Draft measures and restrictions include:. Takeoffs and landings from the south-west on the extended runway 06/24 would only occur in emergencies, extreme weather or when the main runway was unavailable.That happens now. In fact, that situation is monitored by Airservices Australia. It happens now. It will happen well into the future. That is the way the airport is managed. That point does not need to be put into the draft master plan to be a bargaining chip. The article goes on to say:. Current approach and take-off paths for jet aircraft would be maintained.Ballyhoo! What does that mean? That is happening now. What is new about that? The article also says:. Take-offs and approach noise abatement procedures would be reviewed.The procedures are reviewed all the time to make sure that there is less of an impact on people. The article continues:. Aerodrome information referred to by commercial pilots would be updated to include the restrictions.I am sure aerodrome information for commercial pilots approaching Perth airport is continually updated. It is just a load of fatuous nonsense to say that these people have been involved in some sort of deal to achieve the extension of this runway. The article also says:Mr Smith acknowledged that runway 06/24 had existing noise restrictions but said they did not go far enough to address local residents' concernsThey do not. What really has to be addressed is what I am trying to achieve for the Perth airport—and I believe I am getting closer all the time—and that is a noise amelioration package for the affected houses in the area on the same basis as the noise amelioration package given to Sydney airport. Under these conditions it would be a fair transfer of the conditions.In conclusion, the whole basis of these proposals is nonsense. It is misleading people. It is using them as political pawns. I believe that the consultation period has been a good one. But, in the end, the parallel runway is the option, not the extension of the 06/24 runway. I do not know the reason for this tawdry deal, but this turnaround leaves open to question the motives of these people.556416:52:005564Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—One of the abuses of our subsidised health care system is the practice known as `doctor shopping'. It arises when an individual goes not necessarily to a large number, but usually a large number, of medical practitioners seeking prescriptions for a particular drug or drugs. At the outset I want to mention that we have been assured by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) that a person who sees 30 different prescribing doctors in a single 12-month period is likely to come under scrutiny by the Health Insurance Commission, the HIC, as a possible—and I would suggest a probable—`doctor shopper'.Apparently, the people who engage in this practice do so for one of several reasons. Most commonly, doctor shoppers are people who are trying to obtain narcotics or benzodiazepines such as Rohypnol, valium and Temazepam, pharmaceuticals of dependence of one sort or another, to feed a drug habit. A medical practitioner who is a constituent of mine says that such patients are also abusing the codeine containing medications such as Codral and Panadeine Forte in between narcotic drug use.In other cases, doctor shoppers are people who collect a large range of government subsidised pharmaceuticals to take overseas and sell on the black market. There is more than anecdotal evidence that the system is being defrauded by some people who acquire large quantities of prescription drugs in Australia through doctor shopping and sell them at a substantial premium in other parts of the world, more often than not in Third World countries.The concerns arising from all this are several. First, there is the damage to the health of patients who take an excessive amount of medication or unnecessary medication in order to feed an addiction. Second, regardless of the reason for the doctor shopping behaviour, the taxpayer is being forced to subsidise through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the PBS, abusive and fraudulent practices. I understand that the government has been unable to accurately assess the actual cost of this to the taxpayer.The Health Insurance Commission General Manager of the Professional Review Division, Mr Ralph Watzlaff, testified before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs in 1996. In the context of that committee's concession card inquiry he testified that it is hard to draw a line on one side of which are people who have seen several doctors and who have a genuine medical need for substantial amounts of medication and on the other side of which are people who are doctor shopping. Consequently, the HIC had not reached the stage of putting a figure on the cost involved. Mr Watzlaff told the House of Representatives committee about the strategies deployed by the HIC to identify abuses of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.The HIC has two audit processes, one random and the other purpose based. The former looks at a random selection of claims and gives an idea of the extent of fraud on the system in general. Over the two years prior to September 1996 the level of fraud and abuse was less than two per cent. The purpose based audit process identifies areas of potential abuse specifically within the context of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Mr Watzlaff told the commission that the HIC did a minor pilot study in 1995 looking at people who had seen more than 30 doctors in one year. He made the point, however, that a person can be a doctor shopper even if he or she is seeing much fewer than 30 doctors a year.The audit revealed that there was a large amount of drug hoarding. Mr Watzlaff told the committee that the HIC strategy was to intervene and counsel the person and that was successful in a large number of cases. He said that the cost of each intervention was about $300 but that the saving in terms of reduced claims was about $2,500 in each case. Where counselling failed, the HIC has recourse to prosecution. Within the 12 months to September 1996, six people were prosecuted on the basis that they made false representations about their own state of health. Some of those people had been prosecuted several times already.How is the problem to be solved? One method to tackle the problem has been suggested to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs in the context of its reference on health information management and telemedicine. Mr William Dollman, director of the pharmacy networking project and manager of the drugs and poison section at the South Australian Health Commission, spoke of the need for a common drug history to be recorded for each patient. He claimed that the improvements in technology mean that this will soon be possible.Mr Dollman contemplated a system whereby drug information can be centralised so that Dr C knows what Dr A and Dr B prescribe for a particular patient so that patients can be prevented from shopping around. Under this proposal it would need to be mandatory for the patient to produce a card at each consultation and the medical practitioner would need to have access to the patient's drug history. While Mr Dollman recognised, as indeed do I, that there are privacy and data integrity issues, he told the standing committee that `the technology is there to overcome all of those things'. I doubt the need to involve the doctors in the process, and I will get to that later, I hope. Ms Jacquelyn Wood, the general manager of the HIC's Government Programs Division, endorsed the model proposed by Mr Dollman. Ms Wood said that the centralised records systems must be fully interactive and computerised, with access to doctors and pharmacies. I doubt that you need to involve doctors in the process, and that is the point I will hopefully make later.People under the HIC scheme would have the freedom to move from doctor to doctor as they wished, but the doctor would be able to bring up their medical history and obtain information regarding the medication they have been prescribed. That would allow a patient who wishes, for legitimate reasons, to change doctors the freedom of choice to do so and it also detects doctor shopping offenders.The doctor constituent of mine to whom I referred earlier has suggested an alternative model to avoid the abuse of prescription drugs through doctor shopping. This GP suggests that the drugs most commonly sought by doctor shoppers should be made available only through the authority prescription system that is already in place. Currently doctors have to phone the HIC to obtain approval to prescribe certain medications. My constituent recommends that the authority system be modified so that a patient can obtain no more than one month's supply of benzodiazepines or codeine drugs in any one calendar year on an ordinary prescription. Any amount above that would not be dispensed unless an authority could be obtained. The authority would be structured so that the patient must nominate who the prescribing doctor will be and then must stay with this doctor for future authority prescriptions of the drugs for the rest of any one calendar year. The doctor would be able to prescribe therapeutic quantities only.If a patient wished to change doctors, the new doctor would replace the original doctor as the doctor nominated for that patient. Any further authority prescriptions of the drugs written by the first doctor for the patients would be invalid. Patients who continually change doctors would also be counselled.Under this model pharmacists could utilise existing computer link-ups with the HIC authority database and so would not dispense drugs on authority scripts from doctors who are not nominated. Also, it would not routinely involve doctors in the policing network, as would the HIC proposal. However, there is clearly a variety of approaches that may be taken to tackle the problem of patients who doctor shop. It will be useful in the whole exercise to know what a final estimated cost of the practice is. We look forward to the time when the minister can provide that information on behalf of the government. In the meantime there are measures that can be taken. (Time expired).556617:02:005566Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I am pleased to rise immediately following the contribution of the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) because I am the chairman of the standing committee that prepared that report and four others, including one tabled this very day, which I would like to speak to later. I would like that put formally on the record and advise other members that I have been involved in that since I became a member in March 1993. At the moment there are people running around my electorate saying that I am not a very effective member. I find that a most grievous accusation.It is a pity that the Hansard process does not allow diagrams to be recorded, but I hold in my hand—as the first of my success stories—a diagram of the analog mobile phone network prior to my entry into parliament in 1993. It shows a small circle around the district of Sunraysia, another small circle around the district of Swan Hill, another one around St Arnaud and a little bit along the Western Highway. After a private member's bill in this parliament from the opposition in 1994, I am pleased that today I hold in my hand the digital mobile phone network for the Wimmera-Mallee area. There are 21 mobile telephone digital transponders in locations in places as geographically diverse as Mildura, Red Cliffs, Robinvale, Ouyen, Sea Lake, Swan Hill, Birchip, Wycheproof, Charlton, St Arnaud, Donald, Warracknabeal, Dimboola, Nhill, Lawloit, Lillimur, Mount Arapalies, Horsham, Glencoe, Dadswells Bridge and Mount Zero. I am immensely proud of my record and I find it offensive that people are running around my electorate today saying that I am an ineffective member of parliament.In addition to that, when I entered the parliament in 1993 I discovered the lament able situation that a district the size of Sunraysia had only two broadcast television channels covering a 50-kilometre radius. You could get a commercial channel and an ABC channel. There was a community operated SBS, but only one commercial TV channel. In March 1993 I committed myself to deliver to that community access to additional television service. It was not an easy task way back then and from opposition to take on the Australian Broadcasting Authority to advance the roll-out of consideration, even indeed to take on the network that had the solus control of the existing commercial television channel. I am proud today to say that I delivered. And I am offended that people would run around saying that I am not an effective member. It is true that the community would like to have seen a complete roll-out of the full broadscale services in other parts of the country, but there are some constraints.Now we have FM radio broadcasting coming out our ears. It amazes me that people want access to so many channels, but we now have three commercial FM channels, Triple J on the ABC and two community radio stations, in Horsham and Sunraysia. Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, as a local member yourself, you know how much work in the background it takes to put the arguments to the authorities that control the regulation of radio broadcasting. I am proud of it.As regards telecommunications since then, funding under the regional telecommunications infrastructure fund has been allocated to determine the ongoing requirements and the needs of the strong communities around the Wimmera and the northern Mallee. I am proud of my record.Environment: $7 million of funding has been allocated already under the Natural Heritage Trust to the Wimmera-Mallee. There is infrastructure like the northern Mallee pipeline, which is a scheme that only the member for Mallee understands. It is a large channel system supplying stock and domestic water all the way from the Grampian Mountains. For 50 years we have been arguing to have this open channel system piped because 90 per cent of the water that leaves the Grampian Mountains does not get to its end destination: some of evaporates but the great bulk of it disappears into the groundwater, creating massive salinity problems. I am proud of my record—even from opposition—and I acknowledge the commitment of the previous government to the first three stages. Subsequent to that there is now a commitment to the fourth stage, with three to go, and I am confident that I can continue to win the arguments to fund that very necessary environment and water use program.Green Corps: there are already five programs across the Wimmera-Mallee involving young people. It is lifting their expectations of the career path they could have in the environment. One of the projects is preserving the interests of the mallee fowl. I know the member for Franklin (Mr Quick), who was born and raised in the Rainbow district, understands the importance of that little bird as an icon to the arid regions of the Mallee.Aged care: there have been massive injections into aged care in capital funding. I am proud to see the construction of the Oasis aged care centre at Irymple, and I understand it will be opened very soon. There is the Nyah Bush Nursing Hospital Hostel, the Edenhope Nursing Home and Hostel, the Nhill Aged Care Hostel and many others. It is true that aged care is a massive and significant issue to the isolated communities of the Wimmera-Mallee and that there is a lot more to be done, but I am proud of what has been achieved to date.Health: there are 10 electronic Medicare lodgment facilities in the isolated communities of the Wimmera-Mallee. As well as all of this local work in arguing this policy implementation through with the bureaucracy and winning those arguments, I am proud of my commitment to this parliament and the duties I have undertaken, particularly as chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs: five reports, and another opportunity that members get to advocate strongly for their electorates.One of those reports on telemedicine, which the member for Curtin has made reference to, provides a wonderful opportunity to deliver real time health care facilities to isolated regions of Australia. Like the member for Curtin, I am awaiting the government's response to that report and some of the others that the committee has tabled.Further in respect of health, being the federal member requires you to work closely with your state colleagues. The federal electorate of Mallee overlaps the electorates of nine other state members whom I work very closely with. I am proud to say that, working together, we have been able to construct a new hospital at Horsham—and a world class hospital at that. A new hospital is currently being developed at Wycheproof; it is currently out to tender. There is a new hospital on the planning board at Mildura; it is the same situation at Robinvale; there is an upgrade of the Swan Hill Base Hospital; and there is the other work with the health services, including the Mallee Track and the west Wimmera health service—so there are so many things I am proud of.Road funding: the Commonwealth, since the 1996 budget, has spent $34 million on roads in the Wimmera-Mallee and another million dollars on black spot programs, so I am particularly offended to read in the newspaper comments by somebody who has no idea of the amount of work that I have done that I am not a very effective member.I allude obviously to a pretending candidate from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. I will not have that criticism. I will have a debate with respect to policy—let us have an honest debate—but no-one can accuse the federal member for Mallee of being lazy or lacking integrity. I will not have it.I am particularly worked up about this. I have watched very carefully what has happened in Queensland and other places, and I am offended that Australians would propose that we move away from our egalitarian society in which we embrace everybody. Everybody is treated as an equal. I am offended by that very principle and I am not prepared to compromise my principles on that aspect. Under no circumstances will I recommend to the people of Wimmera-Mallee that they put a preference in respect of that outfit any higher than last.I would ask not just the people of Wimmera-Mallee but the people of Australia to look beyond the wide-eyed innocence of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). Probably in her heart of hearts she wants to do exactly what I do—represent her people—but I do not think she is astute enough to realise how she is being manipulated by unscrupulous elements—more particularly, extreme elements—and I defend my intention to recommend to my electorate that she be placed last. (Time expired)556817:12:005568Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I would like to compliment the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Forrest), who I know does a fantastic job for the people in his electorate. I know of the responsibility he takes for the people and the wonderful work he does in looking after my mother, who lives in Nhill.One assumes, all things being equal, that there is a distinct possibility that this will be my last opportunity to participate, at least in this parliament, in the grievance debate. Consequently, I would like to take this opportunity to raise an issue which highlights one of the reasons why our constituents—and I say `our' advisedly—are feeling peeved, disenfranchised and are looking to other parties for simple solutions to very complex problems.I want to read from a letter my electorate office has received recently. It concerns a problem that I am sure many in this House, through their electorate offices, are receiving similar correspondence on. This is the hoary issue of the seeming ineffectiveness of the Child Support Agency to deal with situations like the one I am raising here today. The letter reads:Re: Poverty and Maintenance of Australia's childrenI wish to draw your attention to the inadequacy and injustice of the provisions of the law relating to the payment of maintenance by non-custodial parents.Basically I feel that the method of assessment for maintenance is completely outdated and leaves many of Australia's sole parents out in the cold.I see the following problems: 1. The assessment process looks at the taxable income of the non-custodial parent for the two years prior to the assessment date—which never has provided an accurate basis in the present volatile employment environment.2. Should the non-custodial parent become unemployed, any previous assessment for maintenance reverts to a nil obligation. There is no immediate reassessment upon re-entering the workforce. This is regardless of how short a period the non-custodial parent is unemployed.3. Should the non-custodial parent choose not to inform the Child Review Office or custodial parent of their new employment circumstances, there is no prescribed penalty, and it is left to the custodial parent to determine all the details at their own expense.My name is Louise Bloomfield and I am a single mother with an 18-month-old daughter. I am trying to survive financially on the Parenting Payment and any casual work I can find. I am also trying to get child support maintenance from my daughter's father, Mr Alex Kharnam. The way the system works, I have almost no chance of getting him to `do the right thing'.Let's examine my first point, the two years prior ruling. While determining the taxable income for two years prior may be well and good for those non-custodial parents who have a steady job and career—this in no way applies to the majority of working people. It is very common these days for people to change jobs, find themselves out of work for a short time, and all within a matter of months. I feel that an examination of the type of employment that an individual obtains would be an improvement. The non-custodial parent may be unemployed on a seasonal basis, or may regularly be taking up short term contracts (quite the norm these days).To consider my second point, that short-term unemployment status wipes out any obligation to provide maintenance, I agree that surviving on unemployment benefits is difficult and thus obligation to provide maintenance should be waived AT THAT TIME. But there is no automatic reassessment of income once the non-custodial parent re-enters the workforce. This is a loophole, which is open to abuse.My child's father has managed to do just that. Once the maintenance assessment has been carried out, all he has to do is walk into the child support agency—declare himself unemployed and the maintenance assessment becomes null and void. Even if he gets work the very next day, the maintenance assessment will not reactivate. The only time his new earnings are reassessed is two years later, at which point all he has to do is become unem ployed for another week and have the obligation nullified yet again.The third point is the one that I find most frustrating and insidious. Should the non-custodial parent not inform the Child Review Board or the other parent of their better circumstances, then there is no penalty, and no way in which the information can be obtained. I understood that tax file numbers were used to examine the non-custodial parent's income at tax return time, but apparently this is not the case.I have spent a fair amount of time on the telephone to my daughter's father, hoping that he would provide some information about his present employer. So far I have managed to find that he is employed by "Mine Side Personnel". Finally (courtesy of Telstra—not even Centrelink could give me details of an employer of such a name even though he was employed through them!) I was able to find a corresponding telephone number in Kalgoorlie WA. Even with this information, my Review Officer was unable to provide more than a slim chance that his employer would cooperate.So how does a non-custodial parent who does not want to pay maintenance get out of it? Quite simply by doing nothing and preferably by being in another state where the custodial parent would find it difficult to find anything out personally. At this point I feel that the rules and regulations regarding maintenance by non-custodial parents are a toothless tiger, and are not to be taken seriously.I know I may not have explained all that clearly, but I can tell you it makes my blood boil when I get a phone call from my daughter's father in Western Australia to tell me that he is now earning $70 000 to $90 000 per annum and how he doesn't intend to pay maintenance due to the fact that he will become `unemployed ` for a week or so in two years time and so nullify any assessment outcome.When I tried to get a reassessment, the Review Officer informed me that I had to let them know where and for whom he was working. Now I `think' I may know this time, but what if he doesn't tell me next time? Where does that leave me? Not all non-custodial parents communicate and thus I expect that there are many others in an even worse position than myself.I would not object so much about this situation if my daughter's father earned $20 000 or $30 000 per annum. But his earning $70 or $80 000 while my daughter and I exist on something just on the poverty line is extremely unfair. It is especially unjust when there is no apparent legal recourse available.What do I suggest would be a better solution? I think that a direct link between the Child Review Board and the Taxation Office using tax file numbers and an assessment for maintenance based on the present year's taxable income would be one solution. Certainly, the current working environment of inconsistent employment patterns should be considered the norm.Another improvement could be to reactivate the assessment obligation at any point in time that the paying parent resumes work after being unemployed, ie when the tax office receives a Tax Declaration Form. Also, the introduction of penalties for non-custodial parents and their employers who fail to notify the Child Review Board of their employment circumstances would give teeth to the tiger.I hope that all of the above made some sense to you. I have had no problem talking and dealing with the Department from Assessment and Child Support Agency. Their people have been very helpful and friendly, but it must be difficult to run such a system when it has no real muscle to deal with people who wish to be unscrupulous.Yours SincerelyLouise Bloomfield.This letter was sent to the minister responsible in anticipation of receiving a learned response to her obvious concerns. What response has there been from the federal minister responsible for this issue? None. This woman has to do much of the ferreting out of information at great cost to herself. STD telephone calls to Kalgoorlie while on the edge of poverty test her finances greatly. And all this to simply attempt to gain justice for herself and her young daughter.The system, which sent confidential letters to the ex-husband's employers, is so flawed that the contents of these supposedly confidential letters were discussed with him by his employers. He has obviously realised that some pressure, albeit obviously ineffectual pressure at this stage, is to be placed upon him. Out of the blue, Louise receives a cheque for $500, followed by a phone call from her daughter's father to say that he is earning big money in Kalgoorlie.Has our child support system degenerated to the stage where this woman has to travel to Western Australia at her own expense, drag out the evidence and place it before someone in the agency before those operating in the Hobart and Perth offices remedy this injustice and inequality? I realise that changes have been mooted which go some way to remedying some concerns about the agency, but I urge the minister responsible to undertake to get a serious response from the agency as soon as possible for Ms Bloomfield, so that she can resume her own life, free from hassles and debt not of her own making.557017:22:005570Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—Last Friday afternoon, on ABC Radio in Newcastle, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was caught uttering words of comfort to the people of the Hunter. He told the listeners that what he wanted to see was for security to return and for certainty to prevail. That is a very interesting admission from a man who leads a party that in recent weeks has been mocking members of the current government for daring to spruik such sentiments. Clearly, in the current evolutionary—some would say revolutionary—political landscape now upon us, the Labor Party has not learnt the new ground rules of politics: it no longer pays to say one thing to one audience and do something completely different in front of another.Within a region such as the Hunter, which I have sought to represent with real determination as the coalition's sole lower house member over the past 2½ years, the issues of safety, stability and security to enshrine confidence are built very much on the back of local employment growth in a rapidly changing economy. Despite some hiccups—the most publicised, of course, being BHP's decision to cease integrated steel making operations at its Newcastle steelworks by the end of 1999—the region is more than holding the line in the employment stakes. The Hunter Valley Research Foundation confirmed that 10,000 new jobs were created in the Hunter in 1997, at a jobs growth rate of five per cent—astoundingly, 12 times the New South Wales average.The Hunter regional business activity during the last quarter of 1997 registered growth levels of 10 per cent. Whilst acknowledging that the latest economic regionalism report showed that average employment rates have fallen in the six months to March by around 3,000 people, with factors of the Asian economic meltdown starting to hit home, a couple of political soap operas now being played out behind closed doors could in an instant help alter the situation.One prime issue is that of Redbank power station. The New South Wales Carr Labor government and its corporatised electricity operative, Energy Australia, are playing a very serious and a very dangerous game over Redbank's future. In fact, I take it a step further. What we have over Redbank is the Carr government prepared to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to keep hundreds upon hundreds of Hunter workers out of a job. I say this because proceedings have been set for a full hearing in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales next Monday, 6 July, in an attempt to prove that Energy Australia has liability over its broken 35-year contract deal with National Power.National Power, as developers of the groundbreaking Redbank power station, would have employed around 1,450 people in the Hunter in its construction phase and final completion, and they are just the direct jobs. If liability is proven, we go into legal damages and the New South Wales taxpayer will be forced to foot the bill—and the jobs and the Redbank power project will be gone forever. The cost will no doubt be in the hundreds of millions of dollars if damages are ultimately granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Order! I would remind the honourable member for Paterson that he should not reflect on matters that are sub judice.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What a ludicrous position Premier Bob Carr, Treasurer Michael Egan and Energy Minister Bob Debus have put the people of the Hunter in—let alone the state taxpayers. It is a further rendition of Bob Carr's employment waltz for the people of the Hunter; that is, the federal government takes us two steps forward and then the state Labor government takes us one step back when it comes to job creation. The whole affair is on the verge of being a complete, unmitigated disaster for Hunter taxpayers and Hunter workers. To question this statement only ignores what Bob Debus and his office have said on the public record. I quote from the Newcastle Herald of 1 April over the National Power-Energy Australia impasse:The wrangle was an issue between Energy Australia and National Power, and the Government did not wish to intervene.This is a disgraceful stance from the minister for electricity in New South Wales. The same tone is exhibited by Messrs Egan and Carr.Within this House we have the likes of the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) and the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon)—two men who could have some sway and assist in the political push to get the Redbank project back on the rails. The member for Hotham told this House on 29 May 1997 that `the Redbank project cannot go ahead because the Howard government has abolished the infrastructure bonds which were essential to the funding of that program'.Recently, on a sortie to the Hunter, the member repeated that John Howard had stood in the way of Redbank. What ridiculous pollie-babble when he knows that my government announced around $30 million in infrastructure tax rebate support for Redbank last September. I quote the member for Hotham on 29 May 1997:I think the government needs to guarantee that the Redbank power station will go ahead; the people of the Hunter deserve nothing less than that.Again, on 29 May, the member for Hotham said:. . . I want to refer specifically to is the Redbank power station because, as the member for Hunter . . . indicated, he and I visited it very recently and this is of major concern to the community of the Hunter.On 20 March 1997, the member for Hotham said:The Redbank power project in the Hunter Valley—a $300 million project which uses coal tailings as fuel—is frozen. I know that the member for Hunter . . . has serious concerns about this particular project being put on ice.On 29 May 1997, the member for Hotham said, `It is a very significant initiative for the Hunter.'Later statements by the Director of National Power Australia, Roy Alper, in a letter of appreciation given to me following the announcement, confirm the ridiculous position of the member for Hotham. He said:We are delighted by the Commonwealth government's decision to assure the project support under a new infrastructure investment program. It means we can proceed to close our financing.I am absolutely disgusted by the attitude of the Labor Party over this. The member for Hunter said in this House, of his support for the Redbank power station project:. . . it is an important project in my electorate which would provide jobs.That was on 29 May. Again on 29 May he said:. . . contractual arrangements have already been entered into with EnergyAustralia for the provision of electricity.If this was a private sector organisation which had reneged in this way, Redbank would have had them in the courts for a breach of contract, or in the courts of equity seeking some other form of remedy.I put to you that that is exactly what has happened. The state government of New South Wales has broken a contract and the Redbank power project people are seeking remedy.Quite clearly, what we have here is the member for Hunter and the member for Hotham coming into this House, spruiking on, and espousing how much they support employment growth. But they do not have the ability within their own Labor Party structure to convince Bob Carr and his Labor mates of the New South Wales Right that employment in the Hunter is of critical need. What they are prepared to do is to waste hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars and sacrifice jobs as well. I know that the taxpayers' dollars would be better spent on providing jobs for the people in the Hunter. The only question I ask is: where do their hearts and souls really lie? Are they with the Redbank power project and its jobs in this big ticket investment, or are they with their soul mates in the New South Wales Right ripping at the heart of Redbank's project?There is only so much I can do beyond sitting back in amazement at the brouhaha that is soon to be played out in the courtroom. It is obvious that the words of the Labor Party only rebound here in Canberra; they carry no effect in New South Wales. To sum it up, I need only quote the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) on 29 May, when speaking about it. He said:When we are looking at the consequences of likely massive unemployment in the Newcastle region, the Redbank power project, for instance, would be an excellent example of the employment creating and hence government revenue creating measures which would have followed.I urge the member for Hunter, the member for Hotham and the Leader of the Opposition to convince their mates in New South Wales that employment growth and jobs in the Hunter, which could be provided through Redbank, are important; and they should get off their tails and do something about it.557217:32:005572Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The fact is that the Redbank power station would have been under construction by 1 March 1997 if the Howard government had not knocked over the former federal government's infrastructure borrowing scheme. On this issue I have been critical of the state government, but the point is that the price of electricity in New South Wales would not have been an issue if that power station had begun construction on 1 March 1997. That construction did not commence—LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—This is outrageous. He knows I have one minute of time and he is going to take a most frivolous point of order. You know that to be the case.LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, you reminded me of sub judice. He is arguing a contractual point there about the price of electricity which may or may not have influenced the outcome. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Order! The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5572The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1997 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998 Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998 National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 1998 National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998 Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998 Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1998 Income Tax (Untainting Tax) Bill 1998 Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998 Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 Bills5572r5185572Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 18, page 12 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Minister may authorise the following payments: (a) payments in connection with qualifying redundancies, including: (i) payments to a Commonwealth company (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 ) for the purpose of helping the company to meet payment obligations in respect of money borrowed for the purpose of making payments in connection with qualifying redundancies; and (ii) payments by the Commonwealth under a guarantee given by a Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth in connection with a borrowing referred to in subparagraph (i); (b) payments in connection with the following activities that are undertaken after the commencement of this Act in connection with the reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry: (i) occupational health and safety programs; (ii) training programs to improve the performance of work; (iii) the introduction of new technology or the improvement of wharf facilities; (c) payments in respect of activities that are prescribed by the regulations, being activities in connection with the reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry; (d) payments in respect of administrative costs that are in connection with the matters in respect of which payments may be authorised under paragraph (a), (b) or (c); (e) administrative costs incurred by the Commonwealth in connection with the collection or administration of the levy.(2) Clause l8, page 12 (after line 8), at the end of the clause, add:(4) The Minister cannot authorise payments under paragraph (1)(c) or (1)(d) in respect of an activity prescribed by the regulations until after the end of the period within which those regulations can be disallowed by the Parliament.(5) In this section: qualifying redundancy means the termination (either before or after the commencement of this Act), on the ground of redundancy, of the employment of a person doing stevedoring work.(3) Page 12 (after line 16), after clause 19, insert: 19A Reports by Minister(1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must prepare a report that sets out details of the following matters: (a) the payments that were authorised by the Minister under section 18 during the reporting period; (b) the activities during the reporting period of any Commonwealth authority or Commonwealth company (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 ) that were activities in respect of which the authority or company received payments under section 18 in any reporting period; (c) distributions under section 19 during the reporting period.(2) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.(3) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is a reporting period : (a) the period from the commencement of this Act to the end of the third month after the month in which this Act commences; (b) the period commencing at the end of that third month and ending at the end of the next 31 December; (c) each subsequent period of 12 months.17:35:005573Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 were passed through the Senate on Friday, 26 June 1998 with a number of minor amendments to the collection bill. I commend the amendments to the House.When the coalition took office we said we would act to fix the waterfront. We committed ourselves to actively seeking to achieve waterfront reform. We have never wavered from our resolute determination to eliminate overmanning, tackle labour inefficiency, and improve the productivity and reliability of our wharves—and we have delivered on our promises. With the passage of this legislation, we have taken another major step in reforming workplace relations on the Australian waterfront. The bills will facilitate fundamen tal restructuring by assisting stevedores to meet the costs of redundancy benefits associated with reducing the size of their work forces, improve training, lower the appalling level of workplace injury and introduce new technology. The settlement between Patrick Stevedores, its employees and the MUA will be the first instance of reform and modernisation supported by the legislation.The bills will enable the Commonwealth to provide funds for at least 738 redundancies. This will be associated with reforms by which Patrick will be able to subcontract services such as maintenance, cleaning and security; to introduce annualised salaries and productivity bonuses, based on targets of 25 crane moves per hour; and to replace double-headers, the order of pick, the nick and all the other rorts and scams with new, flexible rostering and working arrangements. The settlement also provides for genuine freedom of association on the waterfront, where employees will have a choice of whether to join a union or not.This, of course, is only the beginning. The bills will encourage other stevedores to sign up to the government's seven benchmark objectives so that they will have access to assistance for approved purposes. P&O Ports have already indicated that they will soon be seeking to introduce similar reforms. I anticipate that other employers, including the smaller stevedores, will also want to take advantage of the reform agenda. I have been informed as such by some of them and I certainly encourage them to do so.I said that we would fix up the waterfront by Christmas, and I am still working to that timetable. The MUA cannot procrastinate. The same is expected not just of P&O but also of Sealand in Adelaide. For Sealand, it is just as important. That company is a monopoly in the Port of Adelaide. It is very important that it reduce overmanning so that its customers in South Australia can see, and reap the benefits from, a more efficient waterfront.Let me turn briefly to the amendments. I will commence with new clause 19A, `Reports by the Minister'. The Senate committee sought changes to ensure a proper level of scrutiny of the Commonwealth funding of reform and restructuring of the industry. The Senate inserted a new clause 19A, which requires the minister to report to parliament on a range of matters. Reports which must be presented to the parliament will be approximately quarterly during 1998, and annually after that. We support the principle of parliamentary accountability.Clause 18 is the minister's power to authorise expenditure in connection with stevedoring industry reform. Clause 18 of the collection bill allowed the minister to authorise payments in connection with, or incidental to, reform or restructuring of the industry. The minority report of the Senate committee recommended that the power of the minister to authorise expenditure be clarified. The amendments moved by the opposition were unworkable for a number of reasons.However, in line with the government's intention that payments under clause 18 only be used to support reform initiatives consistent with the government's objectives, the government proposed its own amendments to clause 18 to specify more precisely the matters to which the minister may authorise payments. As amended, the clause will allow the minister to authorise payments in connection with what are termed `qualifying redundancies'.The minister may also authorise payments connected with the following reform initiatives: occupational health and safety programs, training programs that aim to improve performance of work, the introduction of new technology and improvement of wharf facilities. These reflect aspects of the seven benchmark objectives. I should also note that, if other reform related activities not included in this list are to be funded, this can only occur if those are prescribed by regulation and the statutory disallowance period has passed.I emphasise that payments may be for a broad range of reform initiatives and not just redundancies. The legislation is available to benefit all stevedores, including those smaller stevedores who have indicated that they have no present intention to reduce the size of their work force.As time is getting away from me, I reiterate the government's intention to exempt local cargo from the levy. I announced on 12 June that we would do so. We intended to do so by legislation. However, after further consideration, the exemption will be by way of regulation. I have spoken to the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. Anthony Rundle MHA. He is satisfied that proceeding by regulation is reasonable in the circumstances, and a regulation has already been drafted to that effect to be brought into effect as soon as possible.In conclusion, I thank members and senators—and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience—for dealing with the legislation quickly and efficiently. There remain fundamental differences between the parties and between the government and the opposition on reform of the waterfront. We also see differences on reform of the shipping industry. We are determined, however, to achieve real and lasting reform in the interests of the national economy and the country generally. This legislation is one part of that program.17:40:005575Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The opposition continues to oppose the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998, which have been brought back to the House today by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith). However, we will not divide on the two amendments that have come back from the Senate because they do slightly ameliorate what we see as bad legislation. We have no wish to return this legislation to its original form, which was even worse.I will comment on the three issues that we find objectionable in the legislation, each one having been referred to by the minister. One was the level of parliamentary scrutiny provided for in the legislation over the operations and dealing with money of MIFCo. That largely has been corrected by one of the amendments that the minister has put forward today. Although it is not quite as strong as the version we put to the Senate, it is nonetheless acceptable as a means of ensuring that the operations of this body and its dealing with money are sufficiently subject to parliamentary scrutiny.Of the other two issues on which we have very considerable differences with the govern ment, the first is the question of the scope of the activities for which money may be paid out of the funds at the discretion of the minister. In our view, this should have been limited purely to a situation of bona fide redundancies in the entitlements of workers made redundant. The minister did seek to add a number of areas to that. Although rather suspicious of the ministers' motive, given the performance he has put in on this issue so far, we were prepared to accept an extension to issues such as health and safety and technological change disbursements.However, subclause (c) in the amendment was ultimately adopted by the Senate in spite of our opposition. That empowers any payment with respect to `reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry', provided that that is made by regulation. That, in our view, is far too broad and opens up the possibility that a variety of dubious payments may be made. For example, if you look at the recent past, the Dubai exercise could have been funded or the legal costs of Chris Corrigan paid for on that basis. Although there is a minor improvement in the sense that any such payments now have to be the subject of regulations—which therefore are disallowable—that is insufficient protection from the sorts of things that the minister and this government may wish to do in the wake of this legislation.We do not accept their analysis of the Australian waterfront. As the minister indicated, we have a fundamental disagreement not only as to the current situation on the waterfront but also as to what is the right approach to bring about further improvement and ongoing productivity increases on the waterfront. We think that recent history has shown their motives to be malignant, that their approach to this issue is a devious and mendacious approach and that, therefore, they cannot be trusted to have carte blanche with respect to public money—money that is paid in taxes on containers and vehicles being transported across Australia's waterfront for these sorts of purposes.The other issue which the minister mentioned, for which we unsuccessfully sought to have the legislation amended in the Senate, is the question of which stevedores this legisla tion should apply to. The two main stevedores in Australia, P&O and Patrick's, both signed up to the minister's seven supposed benchmarks for reform in the industry. They both supported the legislation, in effect. Therefore, we have no problems with the legislation applying to them and their containers and with their vehicles being the subject of the levy.We do, however, have a very big problem with the legislation applying to other stevedores without their consent—in particular, stevedores such as Strang in Melbourne and Sealand in Adelaide, who made it very, very plain that they were opposed to what the minister was doing. They did not intend to have redundancies. Contrary to the accusations of the minister, they are not overstaffed at the moment; that is an absolute untruth. They have no intention of using this legislation, and they do not wish to be bullied by the minister into going down the path that Patrick's is going down.I notice with some amusement that the minister announced on Friday that Labor had caved in to his demands on these issues. We have heard nothing more of that because we did not cave in. We maintained our position all the way through in the Senate on this issue. We continue to maintain our position that this legislation should not apply to stevedoring companies that do not wish to be part of it and that those companies should have an opt out provision. Unfortunately, we were not successful on that in the Senate. As far as we are concerned, this remains bad legislation. But, as I have said, of the two amendments that have been put forward today, one is a good amendment which we accept to improve parliamentary scrutiny and the other marginally improves the scrutiny with respect to what the money can be used for, but nowhere near as much as it should.17:45:005576Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I think it is appropriate that there be some response to some of the points that have been made. Firstly, in respect of having a uniform levy, this is the same approach that the Labor Party took when they were in government with the WIRA process in 1989. The levy was applied uniformly across the industry, and it is rank hypocrisy for them to say now that the world is different and therefore there should be a different arrangement.The fact is that Sealand have been very close to the MUA, and the MUA want a special deal for their mates. That is not a proposition that this government accepts. It is no surprise that the Labor Party would stand here and advocate the case as directed to them by the MUA. From the government's perspective, a uniform rate is consistent with what Labor did when they were in government. It is obviously the appropriate way to go. As far as Sealand are concerned, they are overmanned in Adelaide. They are a monopoly. They have a hidden deal with the state government in South Australia which is passing costs on to consumers. As far as the federal government is concerned, we expect higher productivity from Sealand, as we do from others. They ought to be taking advantage of this scheme. The fact that they will now be paying the levy will hopefully put some pressure on them to provide a far better service than we have seen so far. It would be in the interests of South Australia if they were to do so.Secondly, the opposition says that these funds should be entirely limited to redundancies and that they are opposed to the amendments. No-one should forget that, when they were running their reform process, I think $500,000 was paid out to the union as part of a secret sweetheart deal done with the MUA back in 1989. So they do not come to this debate with clean hands. The government does have some wider discretion which this legislation provides us with to pursue our reform agenda, and that is a sensible power for the government to have, as the reform process is an evolutionary one.Lastly, my opposite number says that the government's motives are malignant. This, I must say, brings a smile to my face. As I was reading the press reports in 1994 of the relationship between the MUA and the federal Labor government, it was said by one independent commentator that the MUA had demonised Laurie Brereton and put him in the pantheon of stars along with Stanley Mel bourne Bruce and somebody else that the MUA did not like at the time. The reality is that the MUA finds malignant the motives of anybody who is attempting to reform the waterfront, whether it is a coalition government as it is today or a Labor government as it was back in 1994.Why is it that governments of both political persuasions have looked to reform the Australian waterfront? The reason is that productivity levels have been very poor, and that has imposed a very great cost on the Australian community. Governments of both political persuasions have had a national responsibility to do what they can to fix up the waterfront. What we now know from reading the Australian this morning is that the then Labor government looked at all the range of options which we as a government have looked at. It was a Labor government that received legal advice on cancelling the MUA's awards and agreements. What incredible hypocrisy for the Labor Party to accuse us of malignant motives when they had a subcommittee of a federal Labor government that looked at getting rid of the MUA's awards and agreements.They also looked at the deregistration of the MUA. Why would they look at the deregistration of the MUA? Because they shelled out a huge amount of taxpayers' money to reform the waterfront, got nothing for it and then found themselves subject to an industrial campaign of blackmail by the MUA years after they were supposed to fix up the waterfront. What else did they seek legal advice on? They sought legal advice on the dismissal of the employees. What was omitted from the documents, I am reliably informed, the one thing they did not look at, was a proper redundancy program for the people who might have been dismissed as a result of such action.The hypocrisy of the Labor Party revealed in the Australian this morning reinforces in the end that this has been a government determined to fix up the waterfront. This is not a government that caves in, as Labor always does, to the unions. That is why ultimately there will be no divisions here, as there were no divisions in the Senate—because the Labor Party knows that it is about time the waterfront was fixed up, and this legislation is part of it. (Time expired)17:50:005577Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—There are many points in the contribution of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) that I would take issue with, but given the time that is available to me I will address only two. The first is the purported analogy between the current stevedoring levy legislation that he is seeking to impose and the levy that was imposed on the stevedoring industry by the Labor government in 1989. There is one fundamental difference between the two situations which makes the analogy totally fallacious, and that is that in 1989 you had pooled employment. There were no employees of the individual stevedoring companies; you had pooled employment. If you were going to have a stevedoring industry levy to fund redundancies, by definition it had to be on everybody because there were no separate employees in individual enterprises.Therefore, the analogy is totally redundant. It is totally inappropriate, because in order to have a levy and a pool of money to fund redundancies clearly that had to be on everybody because you could not distinguish between individual employees and say, `This person is an employee of P&O; this person is an employee of Sealand,' which you can now do. To the best of my recollection, there were no stevedoring employers at the time seriously kicking up a major fuss about the levy proposal, as there are now. There was no equivalence then, to the best of my recollection, to Sealand and Strang now saying, `We don't want to be part of this. We don't want to make any of our workers redundant. We don't believe that we are overstaffed. We believe that we are operating in a reasonable way.' So it is a totally false analogy.The second point I would like to take issue with is this incredible beat-up: this suggestion that, because somebody in the departmental bureaucracy a few years ago put a paper together to the minister of the time—whoever it was—along with all the various things that go backwards and forwards, saying, `You have these options,' that in some way means there was some sort of culpability on the part of the minister or the government at the time.Mr Reith interjecting—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—What we have here is somebody who has actively conspired over 18 months with a major stevedoring employer to engage in dodgy corporate restructuring, to sack en masse their entire work force, and has got up and lied to the Australian public about it and said, `No, I didn't know anything about this.'10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! The honourable member should withdraw that comment.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I withdraw the word `lied'.WI4REITHMr Reith—And apologise.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Oh, you must be joking!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—When he withdraws he has apologised.Mr Reith interjecting—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—You must be joking. On 8 May, at a doorstop, the minister said, `I do not know anything about what Chris Corrigan's plans were.' If you look at a minute which was submitted to the cabinet on 7 July 1997, almost a year previously, you will see that under his own name is a statement of detail of the specific strategy that Chris Corrigan and Patrick were then to pursue. He did not know anything about the strategy, but he has actually put a submission to cabinet telling everybody about it.Then we subsequently discover that there is a minute of discussions that have been held on 14 April between his own departmental officials and Patrick that goes into great detail, including on the corporate restructuring, about what is going to be done, and there is a notation on that minute saying that he was advised of this on 19 April 1997. So I will withdraw the specific word, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if the cap fits wear it. And that is precisely what we are talking about here.You have got a situation where this man has done those things and then he says that, because there was a former Labor government that some bureaucrat sent advice to and said, `You could do these things,' that somehow means that Laurie Brereton, the then Minister for Transport in that government, is in some way culpable for that thing when he has got no evidence whatsoever that there were any decisions made of any nature along the lines that he has indicated. Of course, no action was taken by the former government along the lines that he has indicated—none at all.I suspect that that piece of advice was probably consigned to the round filing cabinet, as should have been the advice that this minister received from his department about the corporate restructuring—about the dogs and the balaclavas and the mass sackings. But he did not do that. He actually went ahead and did the things. That is the fundamental difference.Our former government got a bit of advice about this and it did not act on it. It did not do anything. It got a bit of departmental advice, but this minister got that advice and he orchestrated it and he did it. He orchestrated the mass sackings. He went in there and said, `Don't worry, forget about your jobs, you're gone,' and that is the fundamental difference. That analogy is the biggest beat-up of all time and I think that the former ministers in the Labor government can sleep easily tonight about that claim because I do not think they have anything to worry about.17:55:005578McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I realise that in this parliament we are not allowed to use that word which you, Mr Deputy Speaker, just required to be withdrawn, but can I say with regard to this matter that this minister has said one thing, consciously knowing the facts to be otherwise. Consistently, he has made public statements contrary to what he knows the facts to be.He made an interjection about hypocrisy earlier. Nobody cared about it being withdrawn because nobody would care about what he says. But I have to say that is one area in which I acknowledge the minister's undoubted expertise. Hypocrisy is the one thing in this discussion about which I am prepared to say that he is an expert beyond all others and deserves the proper recognition of this House and I am prepared to acknowledge that.WI4REITHMr Reith—Is this really relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—It has been a fairly wide-ranging debate.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—They are the only two things which I think this minister has done well with regard to the matters covered by this legislation.There are two other things that I wish to refer to. They have been covered already, but I want to speak to them more specifically. One is that the proposal that people who do not wish to draw on the fund should be required to contribute to it is simply another stage in a saga whereby this minister has set out consciously to assist Patrick and use the taxpayers' resources, and now the competitors' resources.Mr Reith interjecting—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Oh, you have used taxpayers' resources in other regards, but in this matter you are using the competitors' resources to assist Patrick in return for their engaging in a series of actions designed to serve the political cause of this government. The taxpayer is underwriting this proposition, but it is worse that it is the competitors of Patrick that are being required to fund their operation.People should not have the right to draw on a fund to which they do not contribute. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Nor should they have the right to draw on a fund to which their competitors are compulsorily required to contribute, but on which those competitors do not wish to draw. This is a clear indication that, as part of the deal with Patrick, the government had to commit to requiring the competitors to contribute, whether they wished to draw on the funds or not. It is an extraordinary and unreasonable proposition. The second extraordinary and unreasonable proposition is that because somebody sends a file across to you with a memo, about which you disagree and which you reject—WI4REITHMr Reith—Oh yeah!5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—The evidence is pretty clear. What action was taken on the basis on it? Zero. It was rejected. Let us say, it is extraordinary that you are culpable for the actions of a person sending you a piece of paper and then you reject it. I have to say that I rejected quite a few recommendations from my department that came across in three years—none of them with as much gusto as I might have rejected this particular one. But I was prepared to disagree with my department on a number of occasions, and that is not a reflection on them. It is their responsibility to send across a range of options. The fact that a minister rejects them and finds them unacceptable—they send them up to the next one and the mug accepts them.WI4REITHMr Reith—Who asked for them?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—You do not always have to ask for things to get them. You know that. But you have to be a mug to fall for them, and we are delighted that you were. The best thing for us is this: we do not think that the next time you are surveyed you will even get three per cent. That is the thing that encourages us most about this whole debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5579r3985579Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced.Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments.Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's requested amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:(10) Item 1 of Schedule 9 is taken to have commenced on 17 December 1997.(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 25 to 27), omit subparagraphs (iv) and (v), substitute: (iv) the child: (A) has faecal incontinence day and night; and (B) if under 3 years of age, is expected to have faecal incontinence day and night at the age of 3; (v) the child: (A) cannot stand without support; and (B) if under 2 years of age, is expected to be unable to stand without support at the age of 2;(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 31 to 33), omit subparagraph (vii), substitute: (vii) the child: (A) requires personal care on 2 or more occasions between 10 pm and 6 am each day; and (B) if under 6 months of age, is expected to require care as described in sub-subparagraph (A) at the age of 6 months.(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 1), at the end of the item, add: Qualification when caring for 2 or more children with disabilities (1AB) A person (the carer ) is qualified for carer payment if: (a) the carer personally provides constant care for 2 or more disabled children; and Note: See subsections (2 ) and (2AA) below for the circumstances in which this requirement is modified. (b) the care is provided in a private residence that is the home of the disabled children; and (c) subsection (1BC) (description of care receivers ) applies to the disabled children; and (d) the carer is in Australia. Note 1: See subsections (2 ) and (2A) below for the circumstances in which this requirement is modified. Note 2: For care see subsection 18A(1).(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (after line 24), at the end of the item, add: (1BC) This subsection applies to 2 or more disabled children if, in the opinion of the Secretary, the children require a level of care that is at least equivalent to the level of care required by a profoundly disabled child. Note: For profoundly disabled child see subsection 18A(1).(6) Page 136 (after line 28), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 9—Amendments relating to mobility allowance Social Security Act 19911 Section 19 (at the end of the definition of vocational training ) Add "and, where used in Part 2.21 (Mobility allowance), also includes training known as independent living skills or life skills training".2 Section 1035After "mobility allowance if", insert "the person satisfies the travel test set out in subsection (2) and".3 At the end of paragraph 1035(ba)Add "or".4 At the end of section 1035Add: (2) A person satisfies the travel test mentioned in subsection (1) if the person is required to travel to and from the person's home for the purpose of undertaking: (a) gainful employment; or (b) vocational training; or (c) job search activities; or (d) voluntary work approved by the Secretary for charitable, welfare or community organisations.18:02:005580Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I move:That the requested amendments be agreed to.I can advise at the outset that the government accepts the amendments requested by the Senate. The bill contains a number of measures announced by the government in last year's budget, including the extension of carer payment to carers of profoundly disabled children and significant reforms to the way social security means tested retired people's income streams.Members may be aware that this bill was before the Senate at the end of May, but the Senate made amendments that were at that time unacceptable to the government. The government was disappointed at that time that parties in the Senate had put at risk all of the beneficial measures in the bill that would have helped carers of older Australians as well as the disabled. However, we have since been heartened by the more constructive attitude taken by these same parties in coming to a compromise that enhances the bill in a way which is affordable. I would like to thank the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) for her cooperation in achieving this outcome. I will outline the requests as I understand them: (1) to (6) relate to the mobility allowance. Mobility allowance is a payment designed to assist disabled people undertaking training. Centrelink was paying mobility allowance in cases where people were travelling to life skills training but, unfortunately, that was not technically permissible under the act. The government recognises such training is valuable and these requests will make it possible.Requests (2) to (5)relate to the carers of profoundly disabled children measure. The government has been willing to listen to concerns raised by care and disabled groups, and in the Senate, about the targeting of the measure. These requests expand the availability of the carer payment to more carers, in particular to cases where there are two or more severely disabled children being cared for. Carers are one of the most under-recognised groups in our community and this measure, as well as other aspects of the government's carer package, goes some way to addressing their very special needs. Obviously, this is an important measure. It is good to have the amendments before us which can be accepted and therefore have the bill and the budget measures in place. I therefore commend the requests to the House.18:04:005581Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We are pleased that the government has supported the amendments that were moved in the Senate, even though there was quite a bit of disagreement over some of the issues. People would be aware that the government put a lot of people with disabilities through a lot of misery at the end of last year by taking their mobility allowances away from them, and we are very pleased that that issue has been cleaned up and people can know that they will get their mobility allowances to ensure that they get to their activities without being any further out of pocket.As far as the carer issues go, we were very concerned—and I made some very critical remarks on this part of the bill when I was making my speech on the second reading in the House—that very few carers and their profoundly disabled children would benefit from this important reform. To a degree the problem remains, and the child has to be extremely disabled. There are a number of children who, from our point of view, are extremely or profoundly disabled and who still will not qualify for this payment. Nevertheless, we are pleased that the government has accepted one amendment that we made to at least benefit some children who by any definition would be considered to be profoundly disabled.Under our amendment it is no longer necessary that a child have both urinary and faecal incontinence day and night. Under our amendment it is sufficient for the child to have faecal incontinence day and night. This amendment will be welcomed by those parents who are caring for children in this situation. The government also moved an amendment under which the condition of profound disability is satisfied if the child is under three, and we welcome that amendment as well.The Democrats moved an amendment, which I am pleased to see the government has accepted, that provides for payment where a person is caring for two or more disabled children, each of whom does not satisfy the criteria by themselves but where the level of care required in respect of the disabled children taken together is equivalent to that required by a profoundly disabled child. We were very pleased to support that amendment by the Democrats.There was one other important thing which I would just like to put on the record. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) made an undertaking that the effect of the provisions would be subject to a review after 12 months. She said in a letter to me—and she also said this in the Senate—that the government would undertake a review of the carer payment measure after 12 months, focusing in particular on whether any profoundly disabled children are not benefiting from the measure, and that the review would be tabled in the Senate. She did repeat that undertaking before the Senate for the record. Given our earlier concerns that very few children would benefit from this important reform, I am very pleased that the government has agreed to undertake such a review.The other issue I want to touch on is seasonal workers. I foreshadowed in my earlier remarks in the House the need to take into account the fact that some seasonal workers do stints of work and live on their savings in the intervening periods. I am pleased to say that the government moved amendments to address this point. The government has agreed to our amendments under which work-related expenses can be deducted from a person's seasonal work earnings where the worker shows that they are allowable tax deductions.So there have been some improvements made to this bill. There will also be some protection by administrative review of those people who bought income stream products prior to 1992. I certainly hope that those people will be protected by that process of administrative review.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5582r4245582Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendment made by the House to Senate amendment No. 7.Committees55825582558218:10:005582Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—On behalf of the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), I 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.The National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources Research is being established by the Western Australian government and CSIRO to substantially increase Western Australia's technological capability and its capacity to support the sustained development of its resource industries. Located at Technology Park in Bentley, the national centre will provide a focal point for research excellence and collaboration between CSIRO, cooperative research centres, university researchers, government agencies, resource companies and associated technology suppliers and providers.The national centre will provide a unique opportunity to bring together world-class scientific and engineering research groups to work closely with the petroleum and minerals industries. Collaborative research will embrace a wide range of activities aimed not only at providing solutions to current industry issues but also at providing the research leadership necessary to address the key research needs and research issues of these industries now and in the decades ahead.The concentration of capability and expertise at the national centre will also provide a major incentive for leading edge companies and organisations to locate their operations in Western Australia, further enhancing the prospects for research collaboration and technology transfer and the delivery of innovative research solutions, services and products to the petroleum and minerals industries. The centre represents a marriage of the leading edge research in minerals and petroleum exploration and production with the industry sector.The proposed development will include laboratories and research facilities, process bays, support and stores areas, staff amenities, public facilities, associated site works, roadworks, car parking, engineering and communication services and landscaping.The estimated outturn cost is $31.8 million. It is anticipated that construction will commence early in mid-1999 and be completed by late 2000. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.5582558218:12:005582Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—On behalf of the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey), I 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.The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop Lavarack Barracks. The works now proposed are needed to overcome acute accommodation inadequacies, to improve efficiency and operational effectiveness, and to provide a sound infrastructure framework on which further development of the barracks can proceed.The works are in nine main components consisting of accommodation and messing, operational, logistic support and infrastructure development facilities. The main components comprise new living-in accommodation for 1,112 officers, senior non-commissioned officers and other ranks, associated mess complexes and a central food preparation facility.The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $139.3 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works would be committed in September 1998—that is, this year—with the objective of having them completed by December 2001. I commend the motion to the House.18:14:005583Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—This project is in my electorate of Herbert, where we have Australia's largest defence base. It is located at Lavarack Barracks in the city of Townsville. This is stage two of the redevelopment of Lavarack, and a very welcome stage indeed. The $139 million being proposed tonight will be used to repair and refurbish the living-in accommodation that exists at the barracks. That living-in accommodation is 30 years old. It is run-down. In typical rooms you almost cannot swing a cat. There is an absence of flyscreening and airconditioning. There are centralised ablutions. It is just not appropriate for a modern army to have facilities like this.This Public Works Committee hearing will investigate and hopefully approve this expenditure to upgrade that living-in accommodation that was promised to the army by Minister Bishop when she visited there some 12 months ago. This money will also do things like improve the centralised messing, the logistics, the operational areas and so on. It is a very worthwhile project. I would also like to inform the House that following this stage a further stage will come to the parliament for approval. Stage three is estimated to cost about $159 million and that will see the entire upgrade of Australia's largest army base.Question resolved in the affirmative.55835583Debate resumed.18:17:005583Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I rise to support the report of the committee on criminal deportation and to say a few words about this important report and the approach which the report has taken. I want to say from the beginning that, given there were controversial issues, the fact that this report is signed by all members of the committee indicates the importance of having a committee such as this committee, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration.Given that there is so much misrepresentation on migration issues, especially in the politics of the moment, I think that it is very important for a committee like this to continue to operate and to try to achieve as much bipartisan support as possible so that we have an agreement within this society on the sensitive issues of immigration. In that regard, I must say that I was concerned about a recent parliamentary report which suggested that, in the next parliament, this particular parliamentary committee might be abolished. I think that this would be a very big mistake not only for the parliament but also for our society. Our society is very interested in issues concerning migration and in the factual information put forward to this committee representing the views of others in the society.It is very important that we do not support the proposal to abolish the migration committee in the next parliament. It is important that we support the work of this committee which, as I said before, can help to build consensus in our society about these sensitive migration issues. The work of this committee can also educate the public as to what is actually happening in migration as distinct from all the nonsense which people such as the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) wish to peddle about the immigration program and what is happening with it.Those people who think that the situation with the immigration program is such that the government and the opposition are taking a soft approach to the tough issues of immigration ought to read this report, because this is very tough report on the deportation of non-citizen criminals. Basically, this report proposes that the current powers of the minister and the government be extended—perhaps not as much as some members of the committee wanted. But, as I said before, the negotiation and reaching of consensus within the committee mean that, on the one hand, the committee is recommending to the government a toughening up of the provisions but, on the other hand, the committee is saying that we still have to be sure that people are treated with fairness.There are a number of important aspects to this recommendation, but one of the most important is the recommendation that the minister be given the power to set aside decisions of the AAT on deportation matters if the minister regards the outcome as being in the national interest. This is an important power. It will increase the powers of the minister, but it is important in order to deal with phenomena such as those which have occurred recently in relation to deportation. People were able, for technical reasons, to overcome the problem of deportation by using the AAT when it was quite clear that, on the basis of justice and fairness, these people should have been deported.I think that, in those cases, the minister will be given this power, and I would support the minister gaining that power. However, there are two requirements of the minister if he exercises this power which are consistent with our Westminster system approach. Firstly, he must table an outline of the reasons for the exercise of this power in parliament within 15 days. Secondly, the committee will formally review the way in which the minister has exercised this power after a three-year period of the exercise of the power.These recommendations are very reasonable recommendations in the circumstances. They do toughen up the provisions for deportation. Of course, we are talking about non-citizens—people who came to Australia and did not become citizens either because they did not fit within the two-year period or because they chose not to become citizens after the two-year period. We are not talking about Australian citizens; we are talking about non-citizens who break the law.In relation to that, there exists in the current provisions a 10-year rule which allows people after 10 years, if they are non-citizens, to be treated as if they were citizens. Effectively they cannot be deported. The committee is now recommending in regard to what we call `very serious offences', which can be specified in regulations and which include things like murder, serious sexual assaults, drug dealing and armed robbery, that a person who commits one such offence will be liable for deportation, even if it is after the 10-year period. That is a toughening up, but it is a totally justified toughening up. If somebody resides in our society for whatever period of time and commits these very serious offences they should be liable to deportation.A second matter has to do with offences attracting jail terms of at least 12 months. These offences are less than the very serious offences. If a person commits one such offence, they are given a warning and are told: `If this is repeated, you will be subject to deportation.' The committee is recommending that, on the basis of a second such offence, that person would be liable to deportation. That is a reasonably fair sort of arrangement to be putting in place in relation to this situation.Not only will the minister have the power to overturn AAT recommendations, but in recommendation 17 the minister will also be given the power—if these recommendations are adopted—to grant in the public interest or on compassionate or humanitarian grounds a visa to a previously deported person. This means that the minister, in effect, can consider these cases and decide that, on balance, for humanitarian considerations he may not exercise his power.This is important in the case of children or in the case of family considerations, such as a situation relating to the breadwinner in the family. If they have had two repeat offences, strictly speaking they should be subject to deportation. But if there are children involved or if a family situation is involved or if the minister considers there are sufficient humanitarian considerations, the minister can take that into account. However, the minister—and indeed those reviewing the matter—must take into account victim impact statements. This means that if people have committed these crimes against Australians, especially if they are non-citizens, then there should be a prima facie case in general for deportation under the circumstances I have explained but it should also be the case that where their victims wish to put in victim impact statements they should be allowed to do so, so that a balanced and just look at the matter can be taken.In overall terms this is a balanced approach to this very complicated issue. I commend the committee for the work done on this report and the chairperson, the honourable Chris Gallus. As I said at the beginning, this is a very fine example of the way parliamentary committees can work to achieve positive outcomes. I am sure the government will adopt the general balanced approach which is recommended in this report Deportation of non-citizen criminals.18:27:005585Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—When the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) sought this inquiry back in February of 1997 he said in his media release that Australia's overseas born population generally has a lower propensity to criminal activity. When we have a debate of this kind it is worth making that point right up front, right at the outset, because I know there are a few urban myths to the contrary. It is worth pointing out that the minister himself, in seeking an inquiry into criminal deportation policies, did make clear the lower propensity to criminal activity on the part of Australia's overseas born population.The Joint Standing Committee on Migration has completed an 18-month report and inquiry into criminal deportation. Its call for submis sions resulted in some 58 submissions. It took more than 300 transcript pages of oral evidence. So it is a comprehensive report on the deportation of non-citizens. Its objective is the protection to the Australian community provided by deporting non-citizens who are convicted of serious offences.Labor, in supporting this report and in commenting on it, is concerned to ensure that criminals or people who are members of gangs do not come to Australia and that, if they do commit offences in Australia, they are deported. We do not want to see people here who are going to intimidate Australian residents. I also express the view that those who indulge in racial vilification and in promoting and fostering racial hatred should not be welcome in this country, either. This was also our position in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Provisions Relating to Character and Conduct) Bill, which was introduced to the House by the government going back a bit.The committee that prepared this report found that we need to maintain some safeguard against authorities acting on the basis of information provided in malice rather than information which is properly founded. The deportation policy outlined in the report enforces stricter determination criteria and proposes that what is known as the 10-year rule should be amended in relation to very serious offenders and also in relation to repeat offences. The inquiry reflects evidence that the Australian community wants to see a fair and effective scheme protecting our nation from criminal non-citizens.Against that background the committee made recommendations based on the evidence that it received to modify aspects of the structure of the present scheme. This included amendments to the review arrangements to reflect the central role of the minister as policy maker. The scheme is to protect the Australian community against the risk of further criminal acts by non-citizens while ensuring that international legal conventions and the individual rights of non-citizens are also considered in the process. They recommended changes to the statutory limit on non-citizens' liability to deportation.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—As I was saying prior to the break, the recommendations involve a number of changes including: proposals which would ensure that serious crimes after 10 years residency can still be considered under the deportation arrangements; changes concerning the information exchange between state and territory justice and prison agencies to ensure that each non-citizen prisoner is considered in a fair manner; and the ministerial deportation policy statement which would specify all relevant community views and the weight to be given to those views.I turn now to the recommendations of the committee in the conclusions section of the report. I will set them out for the benefit of the House. The committee proposed that the Migration Act be amended to:(a) provide the Minister with a power to set aside an AAT decision on deportation matters if the Minister regards this outcome as being in the national interest;(b) require the Minister, when exercising the power, to table an outline of the reasons before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days.It is clear on the face of it that that proposal would amount to an increase in the powers of the minister in relation to deportation matters. It is also suggested that the minister ought to be subject to:. . . a formal review by the appropriate committee of the parliament three years after the tabling of this report.As I mentioned before, the committee proposes some changes to what is known as the 10-year rule. The current legislation limits non-citizen liability to criminal deportation to a maximum of 10 years. As the committee points out in its report:Should a non-citizen commit even the most heinous of crimes after that time, the law does not allow for deportation.The committee suggests that the 10-year limit ought to be amended to give greater weight to the interests of the wider community. It recommends: The ten year rule ought to continue to be applicable to those who came to Australia under the age of 18; and the Ministerial Policy Statement be amended to take account of any particular hardship or potential injustice which might arise in relation to those who came to Australia as children.It proposes that the 10-year rule be abolished in relation to conviction for very serious offences.Those offences would be specified in the Regulations and would include murder, serious sexual assaults, drug dealing, armed robbery and . . . other very serious offences . . .The ministerial policy statement would also create:. . . an expectation that persons who were previously convicted of an offence and issued with a warning, and who were convicted of another offence which indicates a pattern of continued criminal behaviour, should prima facie be deported.The committee has also proposed that the Migration Act be:. . . amended to render non-citizens convicted of a second offence resulting in a custodial sentence of at least 12 months liable to deportation irrespective of when the offences occurred. A non-citizen convicted on a second or subsequent offence (even if the first offence occurred after the ten year period) should become liable to deportation.The committee also made some recommendations concerning arrangements between state and territory governments. The committee proposed that the Commonwealth seek to negotiate standard procedures with each state and territory government in order to:(a) identify each non-citizen held in prison as a potential deportee subject to the criminal deportation process; and(b) verify any citizenship information generated by prisoners with cross-checking of available records.The committee proposes that the department formalise its relations with each state and territory government using a memorandum of understanding in order to:(a) overcome deficiencies in current practices;(b) ensure each party is aware of their agreed obligations; and(c) clarify the exchange of information under the Migration Act 1958 .I also note that there are some recommendations concerning the weight of the parties' views concerning deportation matters. The committee recommends that:. . . the current Ministerial Policy Statement acknowledge the interests of any children involved as one of the primary considerations in the deportation process.and that:. . . the Ministerial Policy Statement be amended to ensure that the views of family members are considered in the deportation process, and that the weight to be given to those views follows the proposal contained in the draft Ministerial Policy Statement.It also recommends that the minister revise the ministerial policy statement to enable victims' views to be recorded in the form of victim impact statements. So there are a number of recommendations made in this area as well.In relation to the issue of children, it does call up some quite difficult considerations. I did have constituents come to my office pleading the case of a chap who had been subject to quite serious convictions involving heroin trafficking, who had served a substantial period in gaol and who was to be deported. They sought my assistance in relation to this matter. I said to them, `My office prides itself on the extent to which it gives support to constituents, but if I were the minister responsible I would be deporting this person too.' In relation to the issue concerning children, it did strike me that the person concerned would struggle to be a real father when he had been in prison for the past eight years for these heroin trafficking offences and that, indeed, there was a case to be made for the children of other parents in other families who became the victims of heroin trafficking. So there are some difficult issues at stake here.There have been some calls for this idea of deportation to be extended beyond non-citizens and to migrants generally. I do not support that call in any shape or form. One of the things that I feel very proud of being able to say at citizenship ceremonies is that everyone who becomes an Australian citizen enjoys the same rights as those of us who were born here; that in Australian citizenship there is real equality between people and that all Australian citizens are considered equal. I would certainly argue very strongly against any move away from that position or any suggestion that citizens could be deported, which I understand is now being made in certain quarters. We need to stand for the proposition that citizens are equal. People should be encouraged to become Australian citizens with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. That should be something that people should aspire to and should regard as a very good thing.It is clear from the report that the committee has done quite valuable work. The member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) noted that a recommendation has come forward from the Procedure Committee suggesting that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration be abolished. I, in fact, put in a minority report in relation to that because I think that some of the joint standing committees which were proposed for abolition do indeed do valuable work. The report that we are considering here, concerning the deportation of non-citizen criminals, is in that category. It is a bipartisan report that makes a number of quite significant recommendations; they are supported on both sides of the House so, hopefully, it will be a useful report which the government can draw on.20:09:005587Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I want to make a few remarks, on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, in relation to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration on criminal deportation and generally on the subject of immigration. I congratulate the committee for the work it has done on this report. I enjoyed reading it. In fact, it is the sort of report that ought to be made widely available for citizens to understand the complexities of some of these sorts of issues.There is in the community, as the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) quite rightly said, often an attitude that people who have migrated here from other countries and have broken the law after they have become Australian citizens should be deported or sent back to their country of origin. I was pleased to hear the member for Wills say, and I agree entirely with this, that that is a completely unrealistic proposition—besides the fact that it has practical connotations that would be almost impossible to overcome, in as much as once someone has become an Australian citizen, they do not, of course, have an alternative country of citizenship.I was also pleased to hear the member for Wills state so clearly what I also believe and that is the equality of all Australian citizens before the law. He alluded to, and I need to underline, the irony of that because the quarters from which some of these suggestions about deporting immigrants to their countries of origin come are all emphasising the need for the treating of Australians equally. Yet, when it comes to something like this there is a suggestion—in the usual glib, simplistic sort of way that we seem to see policies enunciated by some of these people—that, because somebody came from some country at some point of time years ago and has since become an Australian citizen, somehow that Australian citizenship can be stripped from them.I know of no circumstances in which that can happen. I do not propose to disturb the Attorney-General (Mr Williams), who is at the table, although I am sure he would be the most capable person in this place to answer that question. I am sure, from my limited understanding of the law, that Australian citizenship cannot be stripped from anybody once it has been given to them. I imagine that is the case, and I certainly want to support what the member for Wills has said and, indeed, what the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said. I heard his contribution to this particular debate earlier on. I congratulate the Joint Standing Committee on Migration for its report entitled Deportation of non-citizen criminals.The Christian Democratic Party certainly believes very strongly in the need for a balanced migrant intake into Australia. We believe that those coming to Australia should understand the commitment they are making with respect to our nation's democratic institutions, traditions and values. We also support increased emphasis on the importance of English language skills for migrants, but we do not go to the extreme of suggesting that everybody who comes here should be able to pass some sort of English test. I was very pleased to see the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) point out the ridiculous nature of such a proposition and how such a proposition would actually seriously damage the benefits that come to Australia from a number of the different immigrant categories, where people bring all sorts of skills to Australia and at the time that they bring those skills not necessarily having a complete understanding of English. Of course, there are other ramifications of such a suggestion for some of the other migrant programs.We believe—and I need to say here—that immigration is important to Australia. It is obvious that our migrants have served this country enormously well over the years. But it is disturbing when you look at the way public opinion has moved. It was only 20 or 30 years ago that surveys showed that people actually believed that the migrant intake into Australia was too low. Now that, of course, is completely reversed and people believe that it is too high.In looking for the reasons for that, unfortunately I think we have to look in part to the way that immigration was handled for a number of years in this country, where people lost confidence in our immigration program and it fell into disrepute. Now there is a challenge largely to all of us but certainly on the government to inform people about the benefits of immigration and to expose the flawed argument that somehow, when somebody arrives here, they take somebody else's job. In fact, conventional wisdom—and I certainly agree with it—says that immigrants come here and actually create jobs rather than take them.I also want to express the concern that having debates about immigration without talking about population policy also tends to mean that we contribute to the adhocery of these debates about immigration numbers. As a nation, we really need, firstly, to decide what sort of population levels we should be aiming for in time and then to make some more intelligent decisions about how many people ought to come here. The Christian Democratic Party believes that Australia does need a continuing, balanced immigration program. We believe strongly that the immigrants who come here can and will contribute to Australia, as those who have come here in the past have done. We certainly do not believe in any sort of racial discrimination in the way that our immigration program is put together.In that broad context, this report gives us an opportunity to highlight some of the misconceptions that exist in the community about immigration. There is, unfortunately, a belief that immigrants come here and in disproportionate numbers commit horrific crimes. Of course, when it does happen from time to time, and we are all aware of some of the problems regarding the drug trade, it is very fertile ground for those who want to spread the myth even further that somehow all the people who come here from somewhere else, particularly when they come here from Asia, are undesirable. Quite the reverse is true, and I strongly believe that we should welcome people of all races and cultures here. I think that is very desirable.In this report we get some interesting ideas about how this particular difficult problem is handled. I am pleased that the minister for immigration has seen fit to refer this to the committee. As has already been said in this debate, the committee has done a very good job of dealing with some complex issues. The fact that they are complex issues underlines the fact that people often have very simplistic views of some of these complex areas. I will quote briefly from the foreword to the report, which is written by the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus). It says:Australia's criminal deportation scheme was designed to protect the community from criminal non-citizens while ensuring that Australia fulfils its international and humanitarian obligations towards these non-citizens and their families.That paragraph is very instructive because it tells us that we have a responsibility towards these people. While they are here as non-citizens, nevertheless they are here legally. That distinction needs to be made. Even if they commit various crimes, they do have rights, and we should recognise those rights and allow them to exercise those rights because in doing so we are fulfilling our international and humanitarian obligations.Some of the people who want to talk about throwing these people out as soon as they do something wrong also have a fairly jaundiced view of how we enter into international obligations. That debate, almost in parallel with the debate that is going on in the community about immigration, is easily taken out of context and misrepresented. The fact is that we do enter into treaties of various sorts. We have international obligations. It may be that there is a perception that in the past a lot of these obligations have been entered into in some respects lightly or perhaps in some secret fashion. But, to its credit, the present government has changed all that and there is now a very open and transparent process in place whereby all of these treaties are referred to a joint standing committee, so there is a process of parliamentary scrutiny in place. I believe the government has achieved an enormous amount by doing that. Hopefully, in time that particular process will lead to there being a heightened degree of public confidence in the fact that treaties are not entered into lightly and that they are given due parliamentary consideration before they are signed.The other point that the foreword makes is that we also have humanitarian obligations towards these non-citizens and their families. That is another key issue in the whole report. It addresses the processes by which these people may be deported, and it raises a number of issues which are obviously pertinent on how the families of these people are affected. Very often there are children involved. It may be all right for us to loosely throw some rhetoric around about getting rid of these troublemakers, but the fact is that in a lot of circumstances, whilst they are non-citizens, they may have children who are Australian citizens who would in some circumstances be separated from a father or mother. These things are not simple by any means, but I think this report goes a great way towards clarifying many of the issues of concern, and it does underline that we do have humanitarian obligations towards these non-citizens. For the purpose of clarifying things, I say that there is also confusion in the community about people who are here in effect illegally, having overstayed their visas. They are subject to removal. The law provides for that. It is applied in a mandatory sense. If someone is found to be here illegally—they have been found to have overstayed their visas or they have not complied with the approval they have been given to come here—they are removed. That differs from the situation we are dealing with in this report where we are talking about deportation. That deals specifically with non-citizens who are here legally. They have entered Australia, they have a current visa and some degree of temporary or permanent residency, but while they have that status they commit a crime of the sort that would lead to their deportation. The word is not removal in that case but deportation. I think people need to understand that we are dealing with two distinct groups of people here.I believe, looking at it objectively, that the government, and the minister in particular, have done a very good job and are very even-handed and fair in dealing with some of these complex matters. The minister called for this report because he had some concerns about some aspects of the current law in respect of the deportation of non-citizen criminals, and this will hopefully lead to some changes in the law that will actually clarify some of the issues that are in doubt.One of the important recommendations I noted as I read the report is the recommendation to:. . . provide the Minister with a power to set aside an AAT decision on deportation matters if the Minister regards this outcome as being in the national interest . . . The second part of that recommendation is to:. . . require the Minister, when exercising the power, to table an outline of the reasons before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days.That recommendation addresses the concern that the minister had expressed about the current system. The committee examined the appeal mechanisms which had been criticised by the minister and others, and it concluded that the present review arrangements did not give appropriate weight to the role of the minister intended by the parliament. That is a very important point, and I am pleased to see that this recommendation brings that into focus and restores the power to the minister to exercise his power in respect of these matters, ultimately by being able to make a decision to set aside an AAT decision. I will not go on any longer. I just appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks and to add my support and commendation to the committee for an excellent report.Debate (on motion by Ms Ellis) adjourned.55905590Debate resumed.20:24:005590Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—At the outset I must say how much I appreciated the time, effort and sincerity of those individuals and organisations who contributed so much to this inquiry into competitive tendering of welfare service delivery. The Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs travelled to most capital cities and some regional centres to ensure a base of information that was as broad and informed as possible.When you are asked to conduct an inquiry into the area of welfare service delivery, some emotion must come into it. After all, you are dealing with potential decisions that will affect a great number of individuals and families, a great many of whom are not as well equipped as others to defend their situation. The situation facing clients of welfare services must be considered to be as important as—or, in some cases, more important than—merely considering the economic arguments for competitive tendering.Before considering whether or not it is a good idea to go down the competitive tendering path of welfare services, it is worth while to look at who, in the main, currently delivers these services and to whom. Non-government social welfare organisations operate very broadly, providing a wide range of services to the community. These include aged care, disability services, community, individual and family services, as well as child-care and employment programs. There are some 11,000 community based and church affiliated organisations, along with a number of private for-profit companies and state, territory and Commonwealth government agencies, involved in these areas of welfare service delivery.It needs to be noted that a very large proportion of this work is carried out by volunteers. Volunteers and voluntary agencies have a long and honoured record in this country in the delivery of welfare services. As noted in this report, in many areas of welfare service delivery, volunteers rather than paid employees are the key human resource. It has been estimated that 10 per cent of the population 15 years and over contribute an average of 74 hours each year to providing social welfare services to the community. We must consider the role of volunteers on two levels: firstly, their contribution to our community and, secondly, the enhancement of lifestyle and wellbeing experienced by the volunteer. One of the best examples is the 70-plus-year-old delivering meals on wheels or home library services to the oldies. We heard of plenty of these marvellous workers along our way.Dilemmas facing the committee were the high proportion of anecdotal evidence and the level of fear and suspicion of competition tendering, coupled with the difficulty in obtaining hard evidence of where it has been used and gone wrong. Nevertheless, when governments or parliaments go out and seek the opinion of the community when considering a range of policy options, surely those working in the specific areas do have valid opinions to be heard and considered. I believe, in the final outcome, that those opinions, views and fears have, in the main, been taken into account in this report.Some of the views put to the committee were most convincing and thoughtful. What reaction would we see to the level of volunteerism should profit come into the equation? If the smaller community based organisations, where much policy innovation has been evident over the years, have to compete for contracts on a commercial basis with larger companies, will they find them selves on an even playing field? Probably not when you consider evidence to date that the actual cost of preparing tender documents is absorbed by the organisation itself, not included as a component of the tender. The fear that the smaller organisation will battle is a valid one.We heard many examples of where an organisation had gone to the cost of entering more than one tender at a time and then having to wait months for the outcome while carrying those costs. What will happen to the current situation of cooperation between community based organisations when their financial existence will depend on competing against one another for the dollars in those contracts? Will they be able to happily share ideas and experiences, as they have done in the past? I think one of the most difficult questions posed to us was: how do you write into a tender document that the paid employee of the successful contracting organisation is expected to care, to take that little bit of extra time and concern which the volunteer unquestioningly delivers? Paid time is not the consideration; care for the client is.There is no doubt that there are some people around who believe there is little we cannot competitively tender out in the area of government service delivery. I do not happen to subscribe to that view. In fact, I believe the time has come for us all to prescribe utmost caution, and I believe this report does that.We also offer some suggestions for processes where standards, accountability and so on are concerned. However, the bottom line is really pretty simple. When considering the lives of the less advantaged in our society, do we allow consideration of competition to dominate, to let market forces start to take hold some time in the future? We can set down these paths with the greatest faith and intent and with what we believe may be the highest level of standard and accountability settings. These things should be, and already are, in place in the current delivery systems. But they can always be improved and better developed, and evidence to our committee strongly urged for that to continue.You do not have to go down the competitive tendering path to ensure higher standards, accountability or value for the dollar. I worry that, should we at some stage in the future adopt this approach, with profit being a major component in the delivery of these services, we will see an erosion of quality or commitment as workers are asked to do more with less, with increased case loads and responsibilities being loaded onto them.While some areas of government service have already adopted the competitive tendering approach, and employment services is an obvious one that comes to mind, I repeat this report's note of caution and I draw particular attention to two recommendations. Recommendation 1 reads:The Committee recommends that the government agency remains accountable for efficient and effective delivery of services, irrespective of whether welfare services are provided to clients by government agencies or through a contractor.Recommendation 8, which follows on from a number of recommended steps of action, reads:Further development of competitive tendering processes should not proceed until such an approach is adopted—in that way referring to those steps of action.In conclusion, I want to place on record my thanks to the chair of this committee, the member for Mallee, Mr John Forrest, who guided this inquiry through some difficult times. To those parliamentary colleagues who involved themselves in what I believe was an important inquiry, thank you for your debate, your consideration and your assistance. To the committee secretariat, committee secretary Bjarne Nordin, along with Darren Benham, Nicola Mizen and Belinda Shepherd, my thanks for your assistance and guidance.In the short amount of time left, I would like to refer to a particular quote in the report. It a was a piece of evidence given, verbally adhering, from the Lake Macquarie and Newcastle HACC Forum. They argued:Service providers—the organisation and the personnel—will inevitably change with closure of contracts. The HACC client group are vulnerable and it is not in their best interest to lose continuity of care and established relationships with service providers. The way in which services are delivered to frail aged people and people with disabilities is vitally important to their wellbeing. I think that captures, more than I would wish, the sentiments I am putting to the report. I join my colleagues in recommending this report and I look forward to the government's consideration of its comments and its recommendations.20:33:005592Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—It is very pleasing to stand and to speak, as the chairman of the committee, to the tabling of this report. I would also like to very quickly place my appreciation on the record to the member for Lilley (Mrs Elizabeth Grace) for making the tabling statement earlier this day on my behalf. This is an extremely busy place, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, as you know, given that I am supposed to be sitting where you are sitting right now, in accordance with the timetable. Shortly I will be sitting where you are sitting and you will be where I am.The tabling of committee reports is a good opportunity for the parliament to demonstrate to the broad community just how busy members are out of the public profile—outside the mainstream, if you like—in terms of the hard work that goes into collecting the evidence that forms the basis of committee reports. I am very pleased to have a hardworking group of members on the committee who traipse around the nation, asking the right questions, the penetrating questions which put the evidence on the record that enables them to then write a report such as that which we have tabled today.The committee has been very active in the last little while. Last year we tabled a report on youth suicide and had a very favourable, prompt response from the government, with all of our recommendations being adopted. We had a men's health report also. Both of these reports came from a different procedure of the committee. Rather than a formal inquiry, we held one-day seminars and asked all of the participants to come here and to record their contributions in Hansard, which speeds up the determination of recommendations. It is a procedure which I would like to suggest to other chairs of committees. We await a response on that men's health report as well.Last year we also produced a report on concession cards in an effort to get some rationalisation into the seven Commonwealth cards that are endemic through the social security system and the social welfare system. One other report that I am very proud of was on telemedicine. We currently await a response from the government on those two reports. I would urge prompt consideration of those two very important reports. I understand the difficulty in forming a resolution because they involve a huge number of departments and portfolios, but that telemedicine report in particular is an opportunity to deliver to regional Australia acute health care and primary health care.I know I am a little off track and need to speak specifically to this report, but I mention those to indicate just how busy our committee has been in the last two years. The report that we are noting today relates to an issue that was referred to the committee by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) in April last year. So in the short space of 12 months we have been able to collect the evidence, get it on the record and make some punchy recommendations.As the member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis) commented, the inquiry was interesting in that it noted the different stages at which the process of competitive tendering proceeds and, given that, the nature of our inquiry caused us to inquire into state delivered, as well as commonwealth delivered, welfare services—although the great bulk of them, of course, are delivered by state agencies. It is interesting to note that $9 billion a year—that is something like two per cent of our gross domestic product—is the amount expended to around 11,000 community based and church affiliated organisations and numerous other private for-profit and not-for-profit companies. So it was interesting in the inquiry to have the discussions and collect information from all those agencies.Probably the most profound recommendation that the report makes is in consideration of whether a particular service ought to be subjected to this process of competitive tendering in the first place. Much of what the committee became aware of during the inquiry was somewhat anecdotal, and there was no specific negative which we could embrace. But there was the fear that to have a process of competition amongst the voluntary sector of community based organisations would put us back 10 years. In fact, it is interesting to note that, if the hours of work mentioned by the member for Namadgi are translated into real dollars, the contribution of the volunteer sector—that is, people motivated by their strong sense of community to be involved in not-for-profit organisations—is measured in billions of dollars. That is something we do not want to undermine. If we attempt to undermine that, we ought to be very careful. The report takes great pains to alert the parliament to that danger.Leading on from that, we discovered that, in defining services in terms of their potential to be subjected to the process, there needs to be an overriding `continuum of contestability'—and it is a dreadfully bureaucratic sort of term—and we make a very strong recommendation in our report that all welfare service delivery processes should have some overriding definition about their capacity to be subjected to a contestability approach. I think, if that framework were in place, the community would be a lot more comfortable about this process.We discovered some very good news about the provision of new services, particularly those delivered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, being initiated in regional and provincial parts of the nation. When the department was initiating a new service, it would become a very natural process as it was not known who was out there able to become involved in tendering—and not necessarily tendering in the strictest sense of the word that we have come to know, particularly as considered by someone whose whole professional career has been associated with the tendering of major contracts.We have evolved a modification, if you like, of the old submission based process where there might be $150,000 worth of funding available, but the tender process is to say, `Well, that's the amount of money. Would you tender and explain to us how you would deliver this service, and justify to us that you can deliver the quality and the efficiency within the time frames, rather than give us a price for the service.' That is a sort of modification of the old-fashioned submission based process that used to occur in the past.Essentially, the report calls for caution. It says, `Let us approach this whole subject sensibly.' There are some positives, but there are some dangers if it is not done properly. I hope that the government will accept the recommendations in this report. I hope that it will heed of that warning and instigate the recommendations we are making about some form of continuum that gives the community some confidence that at the end of the day it will not see an erosion of the services it has come to expect.I would just close my remarks by offering my appreciation to all the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. The committee has 14 participating members. I express particular appreciation to the Deputy Chairman, the member for Franklin (Mr Harry Quick), and all the other members. I offer very special appreciation to Bjarne Nordin, the committee secretary, who faithfully organises the inquiries and gets the right people in the right place at the right time. A very special thanks also goes to Dr Darren Benham, who was seconded to us but who, as inquiry secretary, has given us excellent support in the coordination and collection of evidence and in the detailed preparation of the report. Special thanks goes to the senior research officer, Nicola Mizen, and also to the administrative officer, Belinda Shepherd. I commend this report to the House and to all members for their reading, understanding and appreciation. I look forward to a hasty response from the government.20:44:005594Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I am pleased to speak on this report. The competitive tendering of government services is a concept that is generally worthy of support. Certainly, we have long held the belief that, if a private organisation can deliver a range of services more efficiently and cost effectively than the public sector, it makes sense to allow it to do so. Of course, in such cases it is crucial that the government sets criteria that must be met and continues to monitor and ensure that the services are being delivered in a way that is beneficial for the community. However, as we found during the course of this inquiry, the welfare sector is unique and there are serious questions about some aspects of the contracting out of services, particularly competitive tendering.Welfare services are a growing sector. In 1995-96, $8.9 billion was spent on providing welfare services, which is an increase of 89 per cent since 1989-90. Of this, 65 per cent is provided by state, federal and local government, 10 per cent by non-government welfare organisations and 35 per cent by clients. This report's main recommendation is that no further contracting out of welfare services should take place until a continuum of contestability framework is devised to allow us to properly judge the suitability of certain services for contracting out. As I said, the welfare sector is a unique one. Australians are generous by nature, and I understand that on a per capita basis we make the largest contribution to charities of any country in the world. Those who cannot afford to donate money or goods donate their services in a voluntary capacity. We are a great nation of volunteers. It is estimated that 10 per cent of the population aged over 15 donate an average of 74 hours each year to social welfare organisations.I am pleased to say that we have more than our fair share of these big-hearted people in my electorate of Forde. In fact, each year I recognise the hard work of local voluntary workers with a Forde contribution award, which is a very positive way of thanking local residents, many of whom are elderly and have a lifetime of service to the community. One of the reasons we are hesitant about the implementation of competitive tendering on welfare services is that it has the potential to greatly affect our voluntary workers. If we change the nature of our welfare sector towards competitiveness, the dollar becomes the bottom line, the charities and community organisations become businesses and then it seems inevitable that these groups will appear much less attractive to volunteers.Any decrease in voluntary workers would mean increased costs for welfare agencies, and there is a very real possibility that this would far outweigh the financial benefits it may gain. What is more, voluntary work is a very crucial way of life for many people, particularly those who are retired. It keeps them active, it ensures they continue to be a productive part of our community, and the enormous benefits of both these things in terms of their health is simply immeasurable. As a government, we have taken action to actively encourage the participation of people in voluntary work. Our changes to the social security system reflect this.This report discussed the pros and the cons of further contracting out of welfare services, and it clearly shows that more definitive examination is required before we rush headlong into further contracting out of these services. As someone who has worked with the disabled and many local community organisations, I believe it is very wise to be cautious about going too far. We certainly need to set in place strict guidelines, and every organisation needs to be totally accountable for the distribution of funds and the outcomes they receive. Competition is a great thing in nearly every respect but, when it comes to people based and people driven sectors such as welfare, it is impossible to judge assistance in mere dollar terms.The report summarises a very diverse funding institution in Australia that covers six different models, and they cover over 11,000 community based church affiliated organisations. Welfare services are spread over a very diverse range of services which include: aged care; disability services; community, individual and family services as well as child-care; and employment programs. It is very difficult to measure the precise nature of all of these groups due to the lack of data, and I am sure my committee members agree that there is a very urgent need for resources to be provided so that the data collection is up to date and readily available.Larger organisations, such as the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Centacare and Anglicare, run their establishments like a business with large numbers of paid professional staff plus volunteers. They also have a substantial investment and infrastructure. But the majority of our welfare organisations have rather small annual budgets of less than $100,000, and they are mainly staffed by volunteers. They are specialised groups providing unique services in local communities, and many providers voiced their concerns about competitive tendering which could lead to the demise of their volunteers and support groups. It also highlights the many disadvantages of regional and rural Australian service providers.Key recommendations by the committee were that the government agencies remain totally accountable for the efficient delivery of services irrespective of whether welfare services are provided to clients by government agencies or through contractors. This was reiterated by the New South Wales government and the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which said in their submissions that they were concerned about that. I found it to be a very interesting inquiry because it covered many more aspects than I ever would have believed possible at the beginning of this inquiry. Some of those concerns that we heard included: the impact of service quality; the national competition policy; the continuity of service delivery; the impacts of the costs of services; the cost of impacts on government, service providers and consumers; sector reform; employment impacts; and interagency relationships.A valid statement was made by a social worker from Toowoomba, and I would like to read out a section. I would have found exactly the same thing with this particular statement if I were still working for disabled people. The social worker said:Competitive tendering may be diverse because organisations will be set against each other in competing for funding. At present, a valued characteristic of community organisations is their ability to work cooperatively together sharing resources and sharing their knowledge. This is for two reasons: the value base of the community sector which involves working for the common good but also because insufficient funding has necessitated pooling resources to make the most of what is available. If survival is at stake in a competitive tendering process, there will be an incentive to play the cards much closer to one's chest, and the growth, knowledge and skills in our community sector development depends on the sharing of knowledge and the transfer of skills.That really hit home to me, because I know that is what they survive on out in the community.In closing, I would like to thank my fellow parliamentary committee members, especially our chairman, Mr Forrest, for the joint cooperation during the report, and the secretariat—Mr Nordin, Dr Benham, Miss Mizen and Ms Shepherd—for their support during the inquiry and for preparing a professional final report reflecting the many concerns we have heard during the inquiry. I also extend my thanks to the community groups, government bodies and interest groups for their submissions and appearance at our hearings. It is their recommendations and their thoughts that we have reported in What price competition? I commend this report to the House and strongly support the idea that no further contracting out take place until this is examined in much more detail.20:52:005596Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—This is an unusual way of handling parliamentary reports, but I certainly appreciate that we have more time this evening than we have perhaps at the normal tabling time. At the outset, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the secretariat of the committee: Mr Nordin, Dr Benham, Ms Mizen and Ms Shepherd. Often in our speeches we put secretariat staff last and often they get left off the end, so it is very important to indicate up front our appreciation of their hard work and their contribution.I would like to quote from page xi of the report to give a context to this inquiry:At the outset, the Committee wishes to emphasise that the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that no further contracting out of welfare services should take place until a continuum of contestability framework is developed for determining the suitability of these services for contracting out. This framework should include service related and non-service related factors and be reviewed on a regular basis to take account of changes in organisational objectives and practices, technology and service markets, and that the contestability status of all welfare services be re-assessed at regular intervals. I wanted to quote that at this point because it is very important that we get a context of how the committee concluded this inquiry. During the process we had something like 169 or 170 submissions. We had 10 days of hearings in various parts of the country. I know it may be fashionable to think that parliamentarians and the parliamentary process do not represent and reflect so-called mainstream Australia, but anybody who looks at this report will understand that, given an opportunity, parliamentarians can work productively and can certainly be a useful conduit to convey not simply the concerns or fears of the community but also constructive ideas and solutions from the community back to government.This is an extremely important inquiry and it has been run by the parliamentary committee in parallel with a second inquiry, which I will touch on later in my speech, on indigenous health. At the same time we have been running two inquiries: one on contracting out of welfare services and competitive tendering, the other on the circumstances of the health of indigenous Australians—Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. That was perhaps coincidental, but there were certainly a lot of cross-referencing and cross-fertilising between those two inquiries. It is very important to realise that, with 14 committee members, this report is unanimous.I notice that Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest is now in the chair. He was the chair of the committee and I pay him my respects and my appreciation for his work in ensuring that this report is bipartisan and has the support of all members. That gives the lie to the common perception that we spend our time arguing with each other over silly points of order and matters of a trivial nature. The fact is that we spend most of our time trying to develop solutions that we can all live with and understand. This report, perhaps more than most, embodies that.The inquiry dealt with the contracting out of welfare services, which covers such a wide range of activities, from the very large contracts for health through to very small contracts for home care, for home help in a small community—a tremendous range of organisations, services and personnel. To try to find a national approach so that the methodology used is both appropriate and productive is not an easy task. In fact, in some ways, the report effectively says that: there is not any one single solution, but there may be an approach.Perhaps the issue is more the approach that is taken than the precise formula that is used. What you do in one part of the country you may do slightly differently elsewhere, but you would use a similar approach. The report establishes a technique or term called a continuum of contestability. It is an unusual way of thinking about it. But the concept essentially says that, rather than having a tender each year where there are winners and losers, where there is competition, where there is nastiness, where they may be lack of propriety, where there may be all kinds of problems involved, where organisations may be destroyed and services may be disrupted, we look at providing the services on a continuing basis but make sure that that continuing basis is good for the people being serviced and for the people providing it.Simply letting a tender or having a competitive tender is not necessarily the best way of getting a service. The price being put forward by the tenderer may not reflect the cost. The organisation may go broke. It happens in all kinds of worlds. It happens in the commercial world and it will happen in the welfare world as well when the outcome may be much worse for the clients and for governments. We need a process that may allow the state or federal departments which are letting contracts in the welfare field to have a process that will allow them to evaluate and constantly monitor to ensure that the services being provided are cost effective and, most importantly, suit the person that they are there for.There is a danger that organisations may become self-serving: serving their own organisational interests rather than the interests of their consumers. There is a danger that governments and departments may become remote and too officious and, again, lessen the quality of the service or be not sufficiently sharp to ensure that the funds are well spent; in other words, waste can easily occur. The concept being put forward in the report is more to develop a process that allows or ensures that contracts are being checked and monitored. Quite frankly, if those things are being done then the price should not vary; it should not cost any more for organisation A than organisation B, if they are doing the same work with the same standard and with the same benchmarks involved. The difference, of course, is that in different towns and with different sizes of services, costs could vary enormously. There is a great danger that we could let a national contract for home care or for nursing and yet the cost in a country town could be double or treble that in a city because of the cost of travel or because of the cost of overheads involved.The idea of a national pricing structure is not appropriate. It invariably would not work because Australia does not have a common cost structure in the various parts of the country. But a common process could work and the committee, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, is trying to put forward a series of recommendations that will help strengthen organisations and help improve services.We see competition in more than one light when it becomes winner take all and when it becomes a question of secrets, non-sharing and non-collaboration, as it clearly would and has been, to some extent, in the welfare field. That kind of competition is not productive. Our welfare sector relies a great deal on volunteers, community effort and community involvement. You do not achieve that by making them wage war on each other on a price basis. We heard of case after case where organisations were headhunting staff, where people who wrote submissions were highly valued and where the cost of submissions alone was taking up substantial parts of the organisation's budget.Rather than providing a service, money was being used to actually write submissions for the next tender or for the next contract, so the whole point of the operation was actually shifted away from providing the service to being a good submission writer and a good tenderer—which does not necessarily say that you would be a good service provider. Mixed up in all this is this question about purchaser and provider. The government is a purchaser of services and how those services are provid ed. The difficulty between those two roles, I think, is now well understood by this committee, as are the many other facets of service provision.The comments that came forward from across the community were extremely pertinent. In fact, on page 39 onwards we talk in detail about that. Witnesses said that competitive tendering had the capacity to undermine the effective working relationship between the contracting agencies and the non-government service deliverers. In other words, in many cases there is more than one layer. The government will let a contract to a provider who, in turn, will let it out further. The way that works between the organisations can be quite destructive for community relationships.I referred previously to the other inquiry that we are currently undertaking and which we think we may not finish before this parliament is prorogued. It is to do with the question of Aboriginal health. I want to touch on it simply because it is very pertinent to this inquiry. What is put forward in this report will have relevance and meaning in that inquiry and for those services as well.More importantly, I want to make this point because the chance may not occur again. The issue of Aboriginal health is one that has been a vexed issue for so long in this country—100 years or more. It is one that we have grappled with as people and as governments—both state and federal—across the country of all persuasions. Our achievements as a nation are not something to be proud of but we are currently in the middle of an inquiry which has been going on now for some months in which parliamentarians from the three main parties have actually been working as one. We are setting an example, I trust and I am sure, for the community and for all governments, that there can be a bipartisan approach to some of the most difficult questions facing the country—and this is one of the most difficult.In doing this, we may encourage others who are involved in either receiving services or being involved in providing services at whatever level to recognise that, until we do treat it as a national issue with a bipartisan approach, we will not be helping. From the point of view of those of us on the committee—and what I am saying now we have said on the record previously, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I am not making a comment that previously has not been said but I think has been largely unrecognised, except for those who have been fortunate enough to be at the hearings—I particularly want to express my appreciation to the committee members and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the fact that we have been working in this way.At the end of this inquiry, I do not quite know what we will get but I think the process we are going through is infinitely valuable to us, as individual parliamentarians, and potentially to governments across the country and to community workers who despair that this situation will ever be improved. To have the number of people who have worked so long and so hard in this field, with so little success, is distressing, to say the least. To maintain their morale and their spirit, and to encourage them to keep going, will require an enormous effort on the part of our committee, but that effort is going in in a joint way. We are saying we are here to address the problems as federal parliamentarians, not as members of particular parties.For those who are observing the inquiry—and there were some people who were sceptical; and I must confess I shared some of the scepticism at the start of the inquiry—let me say that I have found to date that my personal understanding has improved enormously and I now have some genuine hope that we may help to make a difference. We may not fully solve the problem but, between the example we are setting for governments and parliamentarians across the country to see that we can do this if we try and the hope it may give those involved in providing services and those who need the services, it will be seen that there is a genuine effort being made to address these problems.Those two parts make this inquiry a very seminal inquiry. There is a concern that we cannot finish it before the parliament is prorogued. Committee members have all said that, in the next parliament, regardless of who is in power, any of us who are back on that committee will carry that inquiry forward in the same way and achieve an outcome that we have worked towards. The competitive tendering inquiry and the Aboriginal health inquiry have had the capacity to change the way we do things in this country. I think the competitive tendering inquiry will do that, without doubt, and I am pleased to have been part of it. The Aboriginal health inquiry has the potential to do that and I trust that, in the months ahead, before or after the election, when we finish that inquiry, it will also be seen as contributing to the improved governance of welfare services for a particular group. I commend the report to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Dondas) adjourned.55995599Debate resumed.21:08:005599Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—I have only a few moments to finish my remarks on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report entitled Australia's trade relationship with India—Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond . Two significant events occurred during the final stages of the committee's inquiry which impact on the Australia-India relationship. The first was the election of a new government in March 1998 and the second was the five underground nuclear tests conducted in May of 1998. India has been described as a country with no full stops and the latter event has put a comma in the Australia-India relationship at both a political and commercial level. The committee maintains that Australia must continue to develop its links west and to build on its trade and investment relationship with India.In conclusion, I would like to take a few moments of the House to thank all members of the Trade Subcommittee—in particular, the member for Chifley (Mr Price), who was the deputy chair; the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis); Senator Kerry O'Brien; the member for Aston (Mr Nugent); and the member for Groom (Mr Taylor)—and Joanne Towner, who is the secretary to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and more particularly the subcommittee secretary, Jane Vincent, and her secretariat staff, Miss Elena Hull, Julia Morris and John Merrill. It was certainly a very time consuming report to go through page by page. I do thank all those members who took part in the final deliberations. I commend the report to the House.21:09:005599Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—At the outset let me say that I personally—and I know the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade do as well—appreciate very much those many members of the community who came before our committee and shared their knowledge and their experience of Australia-India trade with us. We also received expert advice from many government departments and academics. We were fortunate that His Excellency the Indian High Commissioner, accompanied by the Deputy High Commissioner, came before the committee and gave a very stimulating submission. The High Commissioner's knowledge and involvement with both Australia and India made his a very valuable contribution.Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest, it was you yourself when speaking to an earlier report who said that that report was a good example of parliamentary committees working together. I would endorse that remark very much with this committee. In this chamber the standard and the work of members of parliament are under constant spotlight and scrutiny—often rather unfavourably—and so many people judge members of parliament by what goes on in question time. What they do not know and what they do not see is the work that goes on in committees and subcommittees around this parliament.I have served on many committees in my many years in this parliament and they have all been bipartisan. Members of parliament from all sides of the political fence who work on those committees work together and work for the good of Australia. Maybe it is a fact that we do not get very much time to debate committee reports in this chamber and, unless it is something startling or exciting, the media does not show a lot of attention to them. If we in this committee are lucky, we might get a couple of lines in the Financial Review. It will obviously be covered in some of the trade reports. The 18 months or so that the committee members worked on that committee and worked as a team to bring down a significant report will largely go unnoticed and unsung.This important report on Australia's trade relations with India has to some extent been overtaken by events, as the Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas), said, not least by India's recent underground explosions of nuclear devices. For many of us who have a long-term interest and a great affection for India, this was an incident of great regret. In my view, India needed no such show to guarantee her place in the world. India has got an important place in the world and that place will grow in importance and stature. There was no need for her to prove her worth, as it were, by these nuclear explosions.Despite the immense problems, the Indian economy over the last few years has made important progress. It is a great pity that this progress should be placed in jeopardy because India felt it necessary to prove her credentials of greatness to the international community. It should be of great concern that the amount of aid, the technical assistance, that India was receiving has been curtailed. It is true to say that there is at the moment a certain coolness in the relationship between our two countries. I hope that this coolness will evaporate because on an individual level there is a tremendous amount of goodwill between the peoples of our two countries.When most Australians think of India, the portrait they have in their mind is one of begging and poverty. There is poverty in India, but this is only part of the picture. How could it be otherwise with a population of 950 million where it is estimated that 328 million citizens live below the poverty line? People often do not realise that India has a middle class of between 80 million and 150 million—and this depends on what statistics you want to use—who have a disposable income as high as in Australia. It is essential that we play our part in exporting to, and working with, that market.We sometimes agonise about breaking into markets around the world—markets of 30, 40 or 50 million people—but India is a huge market for us, one ignored for far too long. Our trade has expanded over recent years, but to nowhere near the levels it should have. The expanding trade relationship has been provided by the gradual restructuring of India's formerly inward looking economy. Since the early 1990s, a wide range of economic and trade measures have been improved to open up the Indian economy. The current government—the BJP-led coalition—has indicated its commitment to keeping this progress going.Despite its status as a developing country, financial and investment indicators suggest India has huge potential as a market for trade in goods and services. It is the world's largest democracy, with a population of approximately 950 million people, and is growing at two per cent per annum. In 1994, it was rated as the fifth largest economy in the world in purchasing power parity terms, although it is estimated that, as I said before, some 328 million citizens are living below the poverty line. The size and real disposable income of India's growing middle class is debated. However, what is not debated is that, by the year 2020, India is expected to be the fourth largest economy in the world.We hope in this report to give important direction to Australians looking to do business with India. Of course, as with any relationship, it has to be worked at. It is not enough for us to talk to the Indians about cricket and hockey alone. There is much more that we have in common. This was shown at the Australia-India New Horizons promotion held in 1996. In fact, reports I have received indicate that, so popular was the promotion, at times it led to somewhat of an embarrassment when people were overbooked at events. But there is no doubt that the program was a success in the exchange of knowledge of business and trade opportunities between the two countries.There have always been significant academic and educational links between Australia and India. Many Indian students are now studying at our educational centres. But—and this was put to the committee at one of our hearings—it is important that we do not just look to India as a source of paying students, but as a source of a meaningful exchange of academics between our two countries.One of the things that came up in this inquiry also came up in other inquiries recently: the closure of Radio Australia's transmitter at Cox Peninsula, just outside Darwin. The transmitter was closed as a budgetary measure. I believe it was a poorly thought out decision. That transmitter served a very important function not only for the Indian subcontinent but other parts of the world. For example, during the recent problems in Indonesia, Australians could not get any direct news as a result of that transmitter being closed down. We hope that the government will reconsider that decision. As we say in the report, it is a matter of concern that a budgetary decision made by the Australian government for a saving of a mere $1.6 million within the National Transmission Agency has resulted in the loss of an invaluable means of profiling Australia and furthering our interests in India.Another issue that we dealt with is child labour. I see the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) in the chamber. He would be very familiar with this issue because he and I were part of a delegation to India some time ago. It is an important issue. India acknowledges that it is a problem. Reports vary about how many young people are involved. I have seen reports that up to 17 million people are involved. It is an extremely complex issue. I know that many people say that if children do not work the family do not eat, and things like that, but I think it is an important issue that India has got to look at very closely. Of course, we need not single out India; child labour occurs in many parts of the world. Quite frankly, wherever it is occurring it should be highlighted. I believe that Australia, like Germany and the United States, should have some form of certification for goods that come into this country saying that they are not made by child labour. I know that there are all sorts of problems relating to how authentic and how respected that certification would be. Nevertheless, I think that Australia should have a stronger voice on the whole subject of child labour.India is a major destination for Australian diamonds—where they are cut and polished—but this trade is not reflected in the two-way trade figures between the two countries. The diamonds are not shipped directly to India, but go through Antwerp. It has been said that, if the diamonds were shipped directly to India, which the Indians want, that would increase the published trade between our two countries. Recently, I was fortunate enough to be briefly in India. When I was there I met with Commerce Minister Hegde. One of the issues that we discussed was the diamond trade. I was left in no doubt that India would like to trade directly with Australia and include this trade in our trading figures, rather than the diamonds going through Antwerp as they do now.Relations between Australia and India—in trade and socially and culturally—will, over the coming months, have to be repaired. I would hope that our relationship is one that is mature enough to withstand the differences of opinion which inevitably will emerge. I think it is true to say that there was a certain amount of disappointment on the committee and that its spirits were dampened when, after working so hard, for so long and having had quite positive input, the underground nuclear devices were exploded. This aside, I hope that many in Australia and India will read this report with interest in order to increase our mutual potential. Just as Australia is not a land of endless beaches, nor is India just a land of poverty and mysticism. India is a vibrant country and we have much to offer each other in the areas of trade and cultural and social exchanges.I wish to pay tribute to the two chairmen of this committee: firstly, the Hon. Ian Sinclair, now the Speaker, who chaired the inquiry until March this year and, secondly, the current chair, the member for the Northern Territory, the Hon. Nick Dondas, who showed leadership and took over the duties with great diligence and skill. The report is, I believe, a tribute to these skills.While in a congratulatory mood, I also pay tribute to the deputy chair, my colleague and friend the Hon. Roger Price. Also, thanks go to the committee secretariat: Elena Hull, Julia Morris and John Merrill. As always, so much of the writing of the report and the strength of the report goes to the secretary. Jane Vincent carried out her duties excellently in this regard. My congratulations to each of them.I believe that we have brought down a realistic report which will, I am sure, enhance the relations between India and Australia. Our recommendations are practical and realistic. I hope that the report will be read with interest by all those who have an interest in trade between Australia and India. Most importantly, I hope that the report will enhance that important sphere of trade between our two great countries.09:23:005602Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—It gives me great pleasure as a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to speak on Australia's trade relationship with India—Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond . I would certainly echo the comments of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis). In particular, I would echo his comments of commendation of both the chairs who were there during the course of the preparation of this report and also the staff, who play such an important role in any report that is produced in this parliament.India is a country that we have all heard about, but I suspect that many Australians have flown over it but have not stopped off on the way to somewhere else, often to Europe. I have to confess that until a couple of years ago I was in that situation. Then a couple of years ago I made my first ever visit to India as part of a parliamentary delegation. We went to New Delhi and we went to Mumbai, better known as Bombay, and then we went to Bangalore, the Silicone Valley of India.Whilst a number of the stereotypes that you pick up during the course of your life, whether you are reading or whether you are watching television, were certainly the case, equally you get a whole new perspective. Yes, the poverty is there and yes, the Taj Mahal is magnificent and yes, the dust and the bullock carts and all those things are there—the traditional picture of India—but I do not think we understand at all the size of the population. When you talk about nearly a billion people it is meaningless until you actually go and see the vast numbers of people everywhere you turn.I do not think we have an appreciation of much of the technology of India or of the large numbers of educated people who are in India. When you are talking about a population of 900 million you do not have to have a very large percentage of the population to have very large numbers of people with university degrees—highly educated, highly literate, highly skilled and competent people. In our country we could have 80 or 90 per cent of our population with degrees and we would still have only a fraction of the number of highly qualified people in India, where perhaps one or two per cent have degrees. It is the scale of the exercise that I think hits you when you go to that country.I was there shortly before the New Horizons program that the previous speaker alluded to. That New Horizons program was a major push by the Australian government to, if you like, sell Australia in the Indian context. As you travel around India it is surprising how little people in India actually know about our country. In the same way that we have stereotyped images of India, they have stereotyped images of us. Probably one of the few things that we think we have in common is cricket. At the time I was there it was not a good time to be a supporter of Australian cricket. Nevertheless, we held our end up, so to speak. One of the first things we need to understand about doing trade with another country—and India is one of those that is going to be much more important in the trade sense in years to come—is that we have to learn more about the country. And they need to learn more about us. That means that we need to tear down the barriers that separate the two countries.It is quite a long way to travel to India. It is not just five or eight hours up the road, like most of the South East Asia. It is twice as far in travelling time. That makes it just that little bit harder to get there. Until a year or so ago, not too many flights, particularly Qantas flights, went from here to India. By and large you tended to overfly it a great deal. If you do not understand how business is done in a country, then you are less likely to be successful. If you do not understand about the standard of living, if you do not understand about the problems of transport, if you do not understand about the problems of hygiene, if you do not understand about the huge market that everybody talks about—but 90-odd per cent of the people probably cannot afford to buy the product we might produce—then you do not have an understanding of what the market is all about and what the real opportunities are.There are something like 80,000 millionaires in India, and there are 200 or 300 million who are what we would call in the middle class. That swamps this country in terms of numbers. So it is an attractive market. India has thrown off its past association with places like Russia. The signs, when you travel around, are quite visible. All the government cars are 30-year-old Russian cars. They do not work terribly well, the springs are not very good and obviously a lot of updating has to go on. But as India throws off that past and starts to develop itself, to open up and to get into the open market of the world economy, there are going to be tremendous opportunities because of the size of that population.It is not sufficient to do what we did with New Horizons and have just one short-term pitch at the market. We spent $6 million on New Horizons as a promotional pitch, but we went to only six different cities and it lasted only a few short weeks. The reality of life is that if you are going to be in a market you have to be there all the time; you have to be right across the market; you have to be reinforcing your message on an ongoing basis. As a country we do not do that enough. So some of the recommendations in this report talk about the need for more promotion and the need to get ourselves in the market much more frequently and on a much wider basis.I noticed another thing when I was there and we had the opportunity to meet with the then Indian Prime Minister; there have been a couple of changes since—India certainly has a robust democracy. When we met the Indian Prime Minister he was very keen that our Prime Minister (Mr Howard) make a visit. In a lot of countries the fact that political leaders pay calls and make visits is an important signal regarding the significance that we might attach to those countries. So we believe, and we have said in our report, that the Prime Minister should make a visit, as should other ministers on a more regular basis.As alluded to by the previous speaker, one of the difficulties that has overlayed the tail end of this report as we have finalised it and brought it to be tabled, is the very recent nuclear detonations by India and Pakistan. Clearly that has meant that there is some frost or chill in the relationship between Australia and India. Maybe that is an appropriate phrase to use in Canberra, which gets pretty frosty and chilly as well. The problem with that frost is that there is the danger that it may do more damage to us in some ways than to India. So whilst it is right that we express to India our disappointment and disapproval of what they have done in the nuclear field, we will see, however, economic activity between the two countries, and businesses continuing to trade and do business. If we can resolve those concerns about the nuclear issue then relations between the two countries will return to normal. This is important from a trade point of view for us and for India, and also from the point of view of the Indian population, large numbers of which live in abject poverty. They are the ones likely to suffer from any worldwide reaction or sanctions as a result of the nuclear activities.It is not easy to do business in India. When we do business in Australia we take the infrastructure for granted. One of the heated debates in this chamber on a regular basis is about how more efficient our ports should be. In India that is not the same argument at all, whether you are talking about the railways or the airlines. Even more importantly, when it comes to roads the reality is that the infrastructure is not there. Any Australian businesses wishing to go there and do business have to understand that there is a different way of doing business. Because the infrastructure is not there you have to be much more self-sufficient. You often have to be much more patient. Things take a lot longer to get done. The bureaucracy is sometimes a thing of wonder. `Wonder' is probably not the right word because that would imply it was good. As a former British colony, India has learnt more than almost any other country in the world what being difficult and slow and bureaucratic is all about. Certainly the bureaucracy is a real problem for any country that wants to do business with India.In our report we have made 30-odd recommendations. I would like to draw your attention to some of those. There is no time to go through all of them but some of them are quite important. Regarding the Cox Peninsula transmitter, I echo the comments of the previous speaker. When you serve on different committees in this place and undertake different inquiries on a range of areas, some issues become recurring themes. Whether you are talking about trade with India or the report I am due to speak on next, the human rights report which was also tabled today, or a range of other areas, the need to have the Cox Peninsula transmitter facility to get our voice out overseas comes back time and time again. I hope that the government can reconsider.I have already mentioned that we thought it important that the Prime Minister make an official visit to India as soon as relations are normalised. The Minister for Trade, the member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), is a very active minister for this country's interests, and travels significantly. I believe he has the respect of all the members of this House for the diligence with which he undertakes that role. We are keen for him to go to India and also to take a trade mission to coincide with the Prime Minister's visit so that we get publicity from the Prime Minister's visit and the follow up on the ground with the Minister for Trade.We are also keen that we should look at strengthening the Austrade network across India. It is a vast country. If you are in Bangalore you cannot just pop down the road to New Delhi very easily. Because communications and other infrastructure, as I mentioned before, are not all they might be or all we are used to in this country, you need to have people on the ground. Because a lot of the business in India is to do with state governments rather than the federal government you also need that presence on the ground. So we would like to see Austrade extend its network of offices in India.We would also like to see our government press the Indian government much more to remove a number of its tariffs and its qualitative restrictions and barriers to trade and investment which some Australian companies suffer at the moment. We also want to see—and this crops up time after time across a range of areas—as a matter of priority, the government reintroduce some form of mixed credit or soft loan facility as part of its strategy to strengthen Australia's trade and investment performance.Obviously, one of the difficulties we always seem to have with large countries that have a mix of good business opportunities and a large part of the population which is not very affluent is that—on the subject of migration—visas are the problem. Whether it is India or China, which has a similar problem, you want to, in fact, liberalise the rules to let people come into this country to do business. The trouble is that, when you liberalise them, you open the door for a lot of people to come in who say they are coming to do business but they are actually not doing that: they look on it as a backdoor method of migration, they disappear when they get here, they become illegals and so on and so forth. That is one of the problems with opening up the immigration borders in that sense. But there is a need to look perhaps creatively at how we can perform better to make sure that the genuine business people are not deterred from coming to this country and doing business but, nevertheless, we keep out those who should not come.We have also made a recommendation about the Australian government endorsing and actively supporting the adoption of international legal standards that combat child labour. I will finish on this point by saying that something that would horrify every member of this House are some of the child labour practices that happen in south Asia; India is not alone. When you go there, arguments are put forward to you about how economically vital it is but, on the other hand, when you see the conditions and the rate of pay, you say to yourself there must be better ways of doing it. Unless somebody takes a stand and starts to do something about it, it is likely to just drift on, so I very much hope that the Howard government will pursue that particular policy.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.56055605Debate resumed.21:40:005605Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I rise to talk about the report which was tabled this morning, Improving but. . . : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights . It is a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's subcommittee on human rights, which I have the honour to chair and of which the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is the deputy chairman.The subject of Australia and human rights in the region is one which most members of this House take extremely seriously. It is an issue that is often misunderstood. It is an issue on which there are very often differences of view as to how we should go about conducting our human rights activity but, equally, there is common understanding of the goals that we are trying to achieve.Given the location that Australia occupies in this part of the world and given the history and the nature of some of the societies of our neighbours, not just to our near north but to our north and generally in our region of the world, clearly there are sometimes conflicts between what we would call good human rights standards and those of some of our neighbours. Probably one of the outstanding things that came through in this particular inquiry was some discussion of our performance and whether we were doing as much as we could. Concerns were articulated about whether we were being as proactive, as aggressive and as active as we could be, or have been perhaps in the past, and I think there was a view that perhaps over the last 10 years Australia had not been as active as it should have been. Whether that is factually accurate or not, that is certainly the perception in some quarters. Therefore the recommendations in this report do in part encourage government to be visible and more proactive in the whole range of areas.One of the other issues to show through as a theme in our inquiry was the current debate about Asian values. Of course, we subscribe very much to the United Nations' human rights universal standard. We take the view that human rights should be universal. Frankly, whether you are a five-year-old child here, in China, India, Indonesia, Britain or anywhere else, you are entitled to the same sort of protection as anywhere else in the world and, if people abuse five-year-olds or women or any citizen in any other way, those human rights should be universal and should be enforced universally.That is not always accepted in some countries, particularly in some Asian countries. Dr Mahathir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, argues that, in fact, there are Asian values which are different from the United Nations' values. He takes the view that it is not all about individual human rights.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Do you accept that?UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—No, I do not accept that. I thank the honourable member for Fisher for the interjection to make sure that I made that point clear. I do not accept that Dr Mahathir is right. I take the view that we, as individuals, are entitled to rights as individuals, whereas the Prime Minister of Malaysia will take the view that individual rights are not so important. He will take the point of view that the community is much more important than the individual and, therefore, if individuals have to suffer somewhere along the way for the greater good of the community, that is acceptable.I think that, once you start down that path, you get, of course, to the stage where, if you are prepared to subjugate the rights of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) for argument's sake, really it is a short step to saying I will do the same thing to the honour able member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Forrest), the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) or the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Somlyay).So you would be on a slippery slope. It seems to me it is important that if you have a set of principles you have to stick to them. If you start to say, `For the good of the masses we are prepared to sacrifice the individual,' there is really no telling where that will end. History is littered with examples of that.It is also important that we understand that in our advocacy of human rights Australia has a fine international reputation and we as a country have been very active in a practical sense in helping a lot of our neighbours develop their human rights institutions. For example, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission provides the secretariat to the regional human rights dialogue, and we have a number of countries in our part of the world which have undertaken strong developments in the human rights area.We were talking in the previous debate about India and trade. It is also interesting to look at what India is doing in terms of human rights. Whilst there are problems with human rights in that country, one of the things they have done is to appoint a highly independent human rights commissioner and human rights commission. They have some 3,000 staff involved in their human rights activity.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—How many?UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—They have 3,000 staff. This is a country that has got 900 million people, so you are talking about a very large country and a lot of people. They have made a major commitment to starting to update and improve their human rights record.Even in Indonesia, where we have all been appalled by some of the recent events and the treatment, particularly by police and military, of minority groups and of political protesters and so on, we have started to see the development of a human rights movement. We have seen the appointment of a human rights commissioner. In fact, their human rights body is here in this country this week and will be meeting with our Human Rights Subcommittee on Wednesday. We will be talking to them about development of human rights in their country as well as here. So we have provided expertise, we have provided training and we have provided financial support to try to get human rights off the ground in a number of our neighbouring countries.I want to talk about some of the recommendations we have made in our report. The first one I want to mention is our very first recommendation, which is:That the Australian government give consideration to acceptance of the draft Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, provided that the final document is seen to complement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and not to derogate from it.We are celebrating this year the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Former Prime Minister Fraser and a number of other leading international statesmen have drawn up a declaration of human responsibilities so that we do not just have rights but on the other hand have some universal responsibility to contribute to one's community, to one's society, to one's country and to mankind generally. This has caused some controversy. It is not meant to replace the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it is meant to be complementary to that. That is being looked at fairly hard in the United Nations at the moment.We have also put some emphasis in our recommendations on the need for AusAID to make sure that it is conscious of human rights and in its activities looks at human rights and perhaps goes out there and spreads the good word to a number of the countries where it is working and operating.In terms of China, as you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, we as a government have taken a somewhat different stance in the last year or two than was previously the case. This government has taken the view that, rather than necessarily standing up and moving motions at the United Nations condemning China's failures in the human rights area, which I think we all acknowledge, it would be more productive not to do that but in fact to proceed on a policy of quiet diplomacy. Therefore, after Prime Minister Howard's visit to that country, we have come to an arrangement where each year in alternate countries, with visits in each direction, we have a dialogue on human rights where we can talk about what the problems are in each other's country and so on. It seems to me that that is a sensible initiative.It is a break from the traditional way of dealing with things, and certainly there are those in the human rights field who would criticise that. They feel that we should be stronger and more vocal rather than acquiescing with what they would see as China's wishes in the way we handle these matters. Given that standing up and making public pronouncements has not always been successful in this field, it seems to me that it is worth looking at trying to do things somewhat differently. This government's approach is to have that dialogue with China. Last year it was held in Beijing and this year it will be held here in Australia. A whole raft of subjects and items are put on the agenda: the treatment of Tibet, the treatment of the Panchen Lama, forced sterilisation of women, child labour, imprisonment without trial or police brutality when people are locked up, political prisoners and a whole range of other things. Those things are on the agenda and those things can be talked about. It is worth having a look at this new way of doing things.That is not to say there are not occasions when you stand up publicly and state your view about what happens to human rights in China. On the other hand, if you can sit down on a one-to-one basis and negotiate some changes in the situation—perhaps we can arrange for some Chinese officials to come here and receive some training in human rights and the mechanisms that go along with it and we could gradually get those introduced into China—then maybe we will see some change. The committee took the view that, given that this change of direction in respect of China was a fairly recent event, it really was too early to make a judgment as to whether the new direction failed or worked. The jury is still out, frankly, and we will have to see how that goes.In a practical sense we did recommend, for example, that the government should consider whether the next delegation that talks to the Chinese on human rights should not just be bureaucrats, that it should not just be people from Foreign Affairs or the Attorney-General's Department. We think there is a good basis for including experts on human rights from some of the NGOs in this country. This country has a very large force of non-government organisations which work not only in aid but in human rights and a number of related areas, and we have some outstanding people in that field who could contribute mightily to those sorts of dialogues. That was very much an important message as far as we were concerned. Also, given that a number of other countries are having similar dialogues, we think it is important that our government should liaise with those countries about how they are going in their dealings with China as well.One of the more high profile people that we have all been conscious of over the last 10 or 20 years is the Dalai Lama and the situation in Tibet. As you are well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, we had the honour of having the Dalai Lama come to this country last year—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He was right here in Parliament House.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—He was right here in Parliament House and met a number of members. In fact, he went down to the National Convention Centre here in Canberra and addressed 4,000 people, and I had the honour of introducing him. That was a very auspicious occasion as far as I was concerned, as it was for many Australians.It surprised me that, when I talked to the Dalai Lama, he told me that he accepts that Tibet is part of China. He is not looking for full independence. He wants some degree of autonomy, he wants Tibetan culture restored, he wants the human rights of Tibetan citizens to be maintained and he feels that the Chinese are not doing that very effectively; but he is not talking about independence.In April of last year I went to Beijing with an informal delegation. We raised the subject of Tibet with a number of our interlocutors there, and the attitude was that the Dalai Lama only wants full independence, he does not accept that Tibet is part of greater China and he does not want to talk about autonomy in some areas. In other words, when you talk to the Dalai Lama and you talk to the Chinese in Beijing, you get totally opposite ends of the spectrum. Of course, we are good friends with both countries and it seemed to our committee that Australia could well have a worthwhile role in trying to act as a mediator between the two in resolving some of those issues. We are very keen that that should happen.In not dissimilar fashion, our nearest large neighbour to the north, Indonesia, has been going through terrible convulsions in the last few months. It is not just a question of the economic difficulties—goodness knows that is bad enough—but there has been quite severe suppression of human rights. Minority Chinese groups have been attacked, police have stood by and watched it happen, people have been locked up without trial and so on. We are quite encouraged—not too carried away yet, but quite encouraged—that the new Indonesian President, President Habibie, is starting to show some signs of being prepared to talk about East Timor, for example, and perhaps being prepared to negotiate.In the last week or two, the justice minister there has made comments about being prepared to reopen investigations into the deaths of the Australian journalists in Indonesia all those years ago, and we have seen about 12 political prisoners released from gaol in Indonesia in the last couple of weeks. So we are starting to see the beginnings perhaps of some changes attitude in Indonesia on the subject of human rights. We have been a good friend to Indonesia. We are one of the countries that has been part of the bailout, we have substantial business contacts, we are very near neighbours and we have a defence treaty. We have a good working relationship with Indonesia, and the committee sees this as an opportunity for the government to start to push the envelope of better human rights practices out a bit further.Changing the subject slightly, all is not perfect. One of the areas where we were somewhat concerned is that Australia has been very slack over the years in its reporting obligations under the United Nations and other human rights treaties which it has signed. This is not a criticism of this government alone; the previous government was just as bad. All members of the committee, from both sides, were critical of the fact that governments of all persuasions have been slack and slow in their reporting obligations, and we would urge the government to catch up. I know that it has been doing some catching up on the long outstanding stuff, but we are not up to date yet.I think it is also important that the Australian government pursue the ratification of international instruments as a major objective of its human rights policy in the region and, in implementing that policy, provide relevant assistance in the form of expertise, grants and education to those countries which seek to ratify and comply with those instruments. What is behind that is the fact that there are a lot of countries in the region—particularly small Pacific island countries—which have signed almost nothing. I am not saying that their human rights records are necessarily bad—sometimes they are bad, sometimes they are not so bad and sometimes they are good—but they really are not part of the international community, for the simple reason that they are too small. They do not have the finance. When you sign off to a treaty there are reporting obligations, conferences to attend and so on, and there is a cost factor. A lot of the small Pacific island countries are not able to afford to do that and it seems to me that that is an area where our aid could be quite useful.We were very pleased that the government recently set up the Centre for Democratic Institutions. We hope that will allow for the establishment and maintenance of the focus on human rights generally and the dialogue on human rights in particular.I think the single most important recommendation we made—and I save this until last—was our suggestion that there should be a human rights ambassador appointed. We already have an ambassador for the environment, for example, and it seemed to us that a human rights ambassador would be in a position to bridge federal and state governments, a number of government departments and so on, and that person would have the opportunity to speak and understand human rights across the board so that we could pull it all together and be properly represented overseas.Finally on the subject of human rights, HREOC and Chris Sidoti, who came and talked to our committee, have been doing an outstanding job for this country in the international sphere, and I offer them my congratulations.22:00:005609Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—It is interesting that the report we have just been debating, the report on our trade relationship with India and the report on regional dialogue on human rights, have lots of areas in which there are great similarities, although at a quick reading of the titles you might not get that impression. In relation to a couple of recommendations that I will deal with, regarding the transmitter on Cox Peninsula and the question of child labour, similar recommendations are in both of these reports.Before he leaves, I would like to pay tribute to the chairmanship of the honourable member for Aston (Mr Nugent). He chaired this committee with his usual skill and diligence. His chairmanship of the committee is, in many ways, responsible for this excellent report we have brought down. I say that because, when you deal with human rights—and I have been on the Human Rights Subcommittee ever since it was established in this parliament back under the Labor government some years ago—you get a tremendous amount of submissions. You get submissions on whatever particular thing is running in the community at that time. We take note of every submission but, even when you are writing the report, you cannot always give the weight that people think you should give to their particular concern. Of course, then you are open to criticism for not doing that. It is important, in dealing with such a sensitive issue of human rights, that the committee is very ably chaired. These committees have always been very ably chaired.I would also like to pay tribute to the staff. So often we take what the staff do for granted. We were fortunate that we had three secretaries at various times on this committee: Margaret Swieringa, who was the initial secretary when the committee was first established and who was responsible for a couple of the earlier reports that we brought down; Cliff Lawson, who was there for a period last year; and, from 24 November, Catherine Cornish. Their support staff were Julia Morris and Peter Ratas. I pay tribute to the staff who have so diligently served the committee.It is an important time to be talking about human rights because this is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights—or it will be shortly. Also, it seems to me that there has been a no more appropriate time to talk about human rights in Australia than the present. Human rights, or the lack of them, and a respect for them have always generated comment. Last night and indeed tonight on the television I saw film of the President of the United States, Mr Clinton, giving interviews to students. I think tonight he was at a university in Beijing, where students were questioning him. In the report last night, in interviews, some of the young Chinese people were responding to remarks made by President Clinton concerning human rights. They were basically saying that, as he was a guest in their country, he should not have been making any comment on the internal affairs of that country.This is a debate as to whether human rights transcend internal boundaries. Article 2.7 of the UN charter does not apply to this, but people say that they are now of such universal concern that you cannot isolate in particular breaches of human rights, just as you cannot isolate examples of apartheid from the scrutiny of the international community. No-one likes their record on human rights publicly questioned. Even less do people like their record publicly criticised, but it is important that those who would criticise the human rights records of others, such as individual countries, have their own house in order.We in Australia pride ourselves on our human rights record—and it is a good record; there is no question about that. But we also have to be honest and say that it is not an unblemished record. Before we comment on the human rights of others we must always ensure that our own record is not only unblemished but is also open to scrutiny. I fear human rights for many in this country will come under greater scrutiny, and there will be much more pressure on human rights in this country in the coming months. It is fashionable today to say that people have the right to freely express their views. In this democratic institution we would all agree with that; there is no debate about it. But when someone expresses or exercises a right to express a view that impinges on others' human rights, it must be questioned.I must also say, somewhat cynically, that we—I guess not only in Australia but in other countries as well—always tend to be most vocal about violations of human rights the further they are from our country. The closer they come to our country, the less vocal we become. Maybe that is human nature or real politics or pragmatism. I do not know what it is, but the further away it is, the more vocal we are. We are not too vocal about violations in our own country and sometimes not too vocal or vocal enough about violations by our neighbours. Yet, by speaking out, we have the opportunity to have an impact. If you are located close to a country, obviously you will have a working relationship with that country. Hopefully, you understand that country and you are sensitive to some of the issues in that country. Therefore, from that position, you should be able to speak out when you see violations of human rights.There also is the point I made earlier of being open to scrutiny with violations. Personally—and do not get me wrong on this—I think we have a good record on human rights in this country. But we did nothing to enhance our good record on human rights when we would not allow, as part of a treaty making obligation, the Europeans to place our human rights record under scrutiny. If we had nothing to be ashamed of, why didn't we allow the Europeans, as was part of the treaty making process, to scrutinise our human rights record? The same principle is involved. The present government has cut funding to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. But by cutting the funding to that commission what sort of message are we sending out to the international community?I now want to comment on a couple of the recommendation. I agree with the member for Aston (Mr Nugent) when he speaks of the need to have an ambassador for human rights. Again, in chapter 6, recommendation 18, we suggest:The Australian government examine the possibility of enacting legislation to prohibit the engagement of Australians or Australian companies in exploitative child labour in other countries, and the import into Australia of goods made by exploitative child labour.We hear a lot about Australian companies going offshore—and they go offshore for all sorts of reasons. One of the reasons for their going offshore is that so often, we are told, they have cheaper labour costs offshore. The member for Aston, I think, in the preceding debate spoke of some of those conditions. I too have visited some of those factories. I have seen child labour in India, and I have also seen child labour in Indonesia and other places. I have seen Australian firms in those countries employing cheap labour. I have also seen goods coming into this country which have been made by young people working in the absence of any decent health and safety conditions; those goods come into this country very, very cheaply and they are sold at a very high cost. There is clothing, there are training shoes and all sorts of things like that.As I said earlier this evening, I believe that there should be a form of labelling, before goods are permitted to come into this country, stating that those goods are not made with child labour. I know that argument can be shot down in flames. People say, `Well, how can you enforce it?' and how can you do this, and how can you do that? But you just do not ignore the situation, and such labelling at least is a step in the right direction.Also, this government has cut our contribution to and our representation at the International Labour Organisation. I know that that is, if you like, an emotive issue. I know that some people say, `Why should these international bodies pass laws that impact on Australia?' But when talking about these international bodies, speaking from an international perspective, they do have clout. They have been doing certain things over recent years in regard to child labour and I think, even for no other reason, that is why we should be in there with full membership. We should be supporting and helping them to enhance the work they do in connection with child labour.It may be drawing a long bow to speak again of the transmitter on Cox Peninsula but, again, in this report we made a recommendation about that transmitter. We have made that recommendation because we realise how important the sending out of that message is to Australia's image. People—not only Indonesians, but Australians who were there—have told me that during the recent crisis in Indonesia Australian business people and their families, who for one reason or another were living in Indonesia, and tourists—they received no message at all. They did not know what was going on. We could have had a message coming through to them through Cox Peninsula.I am not making a party political point on this because I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the House feel this way too, but I cannot understand why, for a saving of just over a $1 million, the government has closed down that transmitter. It defies logic. Every member who has been with the committees that have been up in Darwin recently and gone to have a look at Cox Peninsula and spoken to the people there and every member of the House, regardless of where they come from, wants the government to reconsider that decision. Everyone wants them to, but the government—and I do not know why—stubbornly refuses to reconsider that. I would urge the government very strongly to reconsider that decision. It was a wrong decision. It should not have been made. Okay, we all make mistakes; we all make wrong decisions for one reason or another. But in Australia's interests, that transmitter should be reopened again.In recent years, there has been some discussion about, say, an Asian view on human rights. We talk about Asian values. But, despite what argument is put about it, especially from an economic point of view, I have not met anyone anywhere who enjoys being deprived of their human rights. That will become more and more important as the Asian economic crisis continues to have an impact on Australia.I do not believe that there are such things as `Asian values' in regard to human rights. There are human rights: you either respect them or you do not respect them. In the international community you are judged by the way you respect minorities and the way you respect human rights. Human rights are about responsibilities and dignity. Everyone has rights. But, when people feel threatened, they do not enjoy those rights.Mr Deputy Speaker, I think this is a realistic document. I hope that people will find it a realistic document, with meaningful recommendations. I commend the report to the House.22:14:005611Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I am particularly pleased to join the debate in relation to this report entitled Improving but. . . : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights which has been presented by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I must say that, during this parliament, I have been privileged to be a member of the joint standing committee and, for a period, I was also part of the human rights subcommittee of the joint standing committee.I would like to commend the honourable member for Aston (Mr Nugent) on his erudite contribution in relation to the debate on this report in the House. The committee received a reference to inquire into and report on the effectiveness of Australia's regional dialogue on human rights, with particular reference to the current debate on the interpretation of human rights in this region; the place of human rights, civil and political, economic, social and cultural, including the issue of freedom of speech and expression in the relations between Australia and our regional neighbours; the place of the debate on human rights and the debate on regional security and stability; the extent of gratification of the UN human rights treaties in this region; and the impact of this on the promotion and protection of the rights of children, including child labour issues, women workers, indigenous people and minorities; and the role of existing institutions both government and non-government, other linkages and avenues for dialogue and the means by which these might be improved.The joint standing committee has made a large number of recommendations to the parliament and to the government—in fact, a total of 27. Time does not permit me to canvass all of those matters raised in the report. I would, however, like to refer to recommendation 7—that is, that the Australian government examine the possibility of playing a mediating role in respect of initiating dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama. My good friend and colleague the honourable member for Aston in his contribution referred to the Dalai Lama and to debates that he has had both with the Dalai Lama and with the Chinese government. I was one of those privileged to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama during his recent visit to Australia. I was impressed with the way in which he appeared to have an attitude of always turning the other cheek. There was a peacefulness and a holiness about the Dalai Lama, a humility which seems so rare when we talk with our fellow human beings. I believe it is eminently appropriate that our government do whatever it can to bring about a mediation between the Chinese government, on the one hand, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the other.There is no doubt that in Tibet there have been gross breaches of human rights and that the Tibetan people do not enjoy the freedoms that we would all hope that they should. I was impressed during my dialogue with the Dalai Lama and during the various opportunities I had to meet with him to appreciate the understanding he has of the world situation and, in particular, his appreciation of the circumstances of Tibet and the relationship Tibet has with China and the Chinese government. The fact that the committee has recommended that the Australian government examine the possibility of playing a mediating role in respect of initiating dialogue between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama is very important. It is appropriate, and I certainly hope that this is a recommendation which the government will accept.In 1994 I was privileged to be part of a parliamentary delegation to Indonesia, and that delegation visited East Timor. Recommendation 8 says that the Australian government should continue to pursue actively in its dealings with the new Indonesian government its support for a solution to the difficulties in East Timor that is just, equitable and in the best interests of the people of East Timor. I entered East Timor as a person who was strongly supportive of the position of the then Indonesian government. I had the opportunity of meeting, with other members of the delegation, the Governor of East Timor and private citizens in East Timor. While I was in the province for only a short period, it was brought home to me very clearly that this was a very complicated issue.A member of the delegation met Bishop Belo, the Bishop of Dili. I am particularly pleased to see in the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade this provision which says that the Australian government should continue to pursue actively in its dealings with Indonesia its support for a solution to the difficulties in East Timor that is just, equitable and in the best interests of the people of East Timor. As the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said, it is easier to be strident and dogmatic concerning the importance of human rights when one is a long way away from the country who you are demanding should apply human rights. They are my words, not his, but that was the gist of what he said. But Australia is not far from Indonesia. We enjoy a very healthy and an excellent relationship with the government of that country and with the people of that country. I hope that we are able to use our relationship with Indonesia, our positive linkages, to improve the situation in East Timor and to help bring about a just, equitable solution which is in the best interests of the people of that country.Much has been said about human rights and how there are Asian approaches to human rights and how somehow in some circumstances human rights in Asia ought to be less than the human rights in Australia or in other parts of the Western world. I consider that in every democracy human rights ought to be something which are judged on objective values. I do not believe that just because someone happens to be in Asia that person is entitled to a lower level of human rights than people would be entitled to in other parts of the world. Human rights are very important. I must say that successive governments in this country have pursued the issue of human rights in those countries and in those nations where we believe they are not being adequately applied.The report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled Improving Australia's regional dialogue on human rights, with its 27 recommendations is a very worthwhile and thought provoking contribution to this very important subject. I commend this report and I ask that the government consider very carefully each of those 27 recommendations. I believe that they are important. They have been made after due consideration and after a full inquiry. I would hope that they are accepted widely by the government and by the general community. I commend the report to the chamber.Debate (on motion by Dr Theophanous) adjourned.56135613Debate resumed.22:22:005613Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—When I tabled this report on the National Competition Council's annual report for 1996-97 earlier today I highlighted the importance that the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration places on the work that is done through the national competition policy and the work that is done by the council itself. I want to quickly reiterate some of those points and expand on them. As we pointed out, the most important part in this report, and the major recommendation in this particular report but not the only recom mendation that we have made on competition policy, was to note that, while the National Competition Council is taking the public education process about content and outcomes of competition reform seriously and is collaborating with the state and territory governments in addressing this, more needs to be done.We feel very strongly, particularly in the light of current public debate, that a lot more does need to be done, because it is very important that the public be aware of the benefits of competition and very much aware that competition is not only pursued for its own sake but pursued because it is seen that there is a net community benefit. That is very important. On some occasions not only must it be explained why that benefit is being pursued but also in cases where it is not it is expected that governments will explain that.It is clear that some of the policy reform that has been pursued by various governments is going to start to show some real results, and we are already seeing some of the benefits coming through. There are some more that have been outlined in our report. Some of the benefits that have already been experienced—and I will come to these in a bit more detail—are lower prices in telephone calls, reductions in air fares, lower electricity costs in Victoria, lower freight rates between the eastern states and Perth and a 15 per cent reduction in real terms in the prices of some of the government trading enterprises. All in all, there are already some very tangible benefits.We went on to point out that there is some concern about the way those benefits are being distributed throughout the community, in particular where that distribution may or may not fall equally or similarly between metropolitan areas and regional areas. We as a committee have already addressed that problem in previous reports. It is significant to note that when we reviewed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's annual report for 1995-96 one of our recommendations was that the Treasurer initiate a study of the extent to which the benefits of competition are flowing to rural and regional Australia.I am pleased to be able to remind the House tonight that the government agreed with this response and, furthermore, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has initiated a reference to the Productivity Commission to conduct a general review of the economic impact of the benefits to rural and regional Australia resulting from competition reforms introduced following the implementation of the Hilmer report. He went on to say that it is anticipated this review will cover competition reforms introduced at all levels of government, and it is expected that the most appropriate time to initiate this study would be towards the end of this financial year, which of course is right now. This shows that not only has the committee done some very good work but also the government is responding to that work.We also went on in our report to talk about the very significant amount of money that is involved with competition payments to the states. Already, in the coming financial year, there will be $217 million, and over the next nine years or so those competition dividends are going to exceed $16 billion. So it is not an insignificant amount of money. The National Competition Council has a very big responsibility to administer that money in a way that ensures that the policy is implemented according to the expectations of the governments that signed off on this in 1995.The committee also looked at the whole question of net community benefit of competition. We looked at the ongoing tensions in the dual role of the National Competition Council in advising on competition matters and in assessing them for the purposes of the competition dividend. We also looked again at the government strategy for addressing the taxation of local government businesses and the question of legislative reform of the professions and statutory marketing arrangements.We believe that a very important part of the National Competition Council's accountability to the parliament is that the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration look at their annual report and we have included as an appendix to the report the response of the government and the recommendations made by the committee when it did its large report last year, Cultivating Competition. I am pleased to remind the House again that all bar one of the recommendations were agreed to by the government. Many of these recommendations are designed to improve the implementation of competition policy, the accountability of competition and the way it is implemented. Most importantly, the report emphasises the point of educating the community on the benefits of pursuing competition policy.If I could look at a couple of the key recommendations in this area, there were recommendations on reporting and monitoring of community service obligations, a recommendation on the contracting out of community service obligations and recommendations on the transparency of community service obligations, on the coordination of community service obligations and welfare payments and also on funding arrangements. In this area and a number of other areas the committee did some very important work, which I am sure will enhance the implementation of competition policy in this nation.Debate interrupted.Adjournment561410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.561422:30:005614Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—This is certainly a fascinating time in Australian politics, a time when perhaps we are witnessing the disintegration of the traditional left-right divide on the political spectrum. It is a time when, in the Melbourne Age this morning, Ken Davidson can praise Pauline Hanson's economic policies, a time at which the conservative National Civic Council and the hedonistic Australian Democrats can form a unity ticket on the question of economic rationalism. Perhaps the most significant aspect of this time of change in Australian politics is the fact that we are witnessing the fragmentation of the traditional conservative side of Australian politics; we are witnessing the way in which the coalition vote is being stripped away on both sides, losing some of its more socially conservative supporters to One Nation while its small `l' liberal constituency is fleeing to the Australian Labor Party.It needs to be remembered in this context that, among the senior ranks of the coalition parties, there was only ever a complaint about One Nation when it became a threat to them politically. Indeed, it should be remembered that the initial response of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to the maiden speech by the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) was to go to Brisbane and praise this as an example of freedom of speech under his government; not that she was wrong, not that she had erred in her economic or social prescriptions but, rather, we could welcome a new era of freedom of speech in Australia. Indeed, the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott), who sits opposite, made a similar point in an article in the Australian on 28 September 1996. He wrote:Undeniably, however, she—Pauline Hanson—has struck a chord in middle Australia.How that chord has now turned to a sour note being struck for the member for Warringah! In this context it needs to be remembered that the origins of One Nation lie very much within the Liberal Party. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) made a fundamental mistake recently when he said that One Nation policy was coming out of the League of Rights. It comes out of two former members of the Liberal Party, Pauline Hanson and David Oldfield. The one thing they have in common is that they are former members of the Liberal Party of Australia. They are now seeking a constituency that the Prime Minister himself cultivated from 1995 onwards, the constituency engaging in downwards envy, the belief that the newly insecure group at the middle of society could prosper only if government took things away from those lower on the social ladder than themselves.It was defined as the Howard battler constituency but now the Prime Minister in that political appeal has been well and truly trumped because the constituency he has sought to cultivate do not want accountability measures for ATSIC, they want it abolished; they do not want a 10 per cent cut in migration, they want the whole program wiped out; they do not want a tariff pause, they want the erection of tariff walls in Australia. So the Prime Minister, cultivating this constituency, has now found that the Howard battlers have gone the full monty, over to One Nation.In this regard the coalition parties are playing catch-up politics, only ever complaining about One Nation when it started to hurt them politically, and this applies especially to the member for Warringah. We will hear his complaints later on, I suspect. I bring to the House's attention something that he wrote—I know he takes an interest in things I write. I was interested in a document of 2 May 1997, describing David Oldfield as someone with high ideals and immense ability. He was, in short:. . . an absolutely outstanding staffer, the kind of lieutenant every politician needs and hopes for, and perhaps only properly values when he is about to go. Anyone who needs a job done—and the tougher the job, the more David will revel in the task—will find him a great friend and excellent colleague.I think the member for Oxley took the reference quite seriously; if you need a job done, who are you going to call? David Oldfield. The reference also mentioned that the member for Warringah was pleased to discover that:David had learned a great deal from his experience as a candidate and as a counsellor, and helped me to avoid the unnecessary point scoring and needless creation of enemies which often demeans politics.So the man who was helping the member for Warringah to avoid enemies is now public enemy No. 1. How the wheel turns in politics. The man stopping him from having enemies is now public enemy No. 1. I am sure we will hear words to that effect later from the member for Warringah.As you know, Mr Speaker, I have always had a keen interest in the history of these matters. The parliament and the public record need to know the history of who cultivated One Nation in the first instance and where these ideas came from. They came out of the office of the member for Warringah in the form of David Oldfield and out of the mind and politics of someone endorsed by the Liberal Party in the 1996 election, Pauline Hanson. (Time expired)561622:35:005616Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I wish to draw the attention of the House to a competition that was conducted by the Young Liberal movement in New South Wales and which was entitled Vision Today, Leaders Tomorrow Competition. Secondary school students were invited to write an essay about leadership and the kind of Australia that they wanted to see. The winner of this competition is Michael Reville who comes from Forestville, which is not in my electorate but on the other side of the border in the electorate of Mackellar. Michael Reville wrote an essay entitled `Through Australian Eyes'. I do not intend to read all of the essay but I will read some parts of it. It says:We live in a `hopeless' society. We live in a good and prosperous society, but it is a society without hope. Four hundred Australian youths commit suicide each year, and surveys suggest that up to fifteen percent of adolescents attempt suicide at least once. The recent Youth Suicide Conference found that the one link between all these adolescents was a lack of hope.. . . . . . . . .So many societies today stress the negatives, and Australia is no exception. When we open up a newspaper it tells of fighting in Israel, debates over Wik legislation and dishonest corporations. A positive article in the news, be it press or television, is in the minority.He goes on to say:One could conclude from the media's presentations that nearly all world events are negative.We are socialised to believe that everyone is untrustworthy until they have proven themselves honest.A further important point he makes is:When we hear a politician speak it is usually to condemn the ideas of another person or to condemn the person themself.. . . . . . . . .It would be a rare day indeed if a politician was to say "I think Mr X really means well, and it's just this one aspect of his plan that I feel needs improvement."Mr Reville went on further to say:This essay is a plea to the future leaders of Australia to tell us that society is OK. . . . . . . . . .Speaking positively of Australian society also means speaking highly of all citizens, encouraging respect for the decision makers whom we elect, and reminding us of the progress we are making over the challenges that face us. . . . . . . . . .We should not ignore the challenges that do face us, be they Aboriginal reconciliation, suicide or conflict between the government and trade unions. These challenges, however, should not be sensationalised as they are by the media.The point that is made in this essay, which I think is one of the thematic issues that are emerging in the contemporary political debate, is that hope, whilst it is fragile, has always been an extremely powerful force for overcoming adversity. One of the other observations I would make is that the emerging political battles in my view are not likely to be between the traditional left and the traditional right of Australian politics, but they are going to be, and increasingly are, between those on the one hand who have a values-ethics-philosophical basis to addressing life's problems and those on the other hand who see nothing other than the primacy of markets as the solution of our problems.If we are going to instil hope in the next generation—the young generation and perhaps those who are not so young—the most important thing this country needs in my opinion is strategic vision. We need a comprehensive sense of who we are, how we relate to one another, where we want to get as a nation, what we intend to do to get there and what we think we will do once we have arrived. There needs to be an enunciation of what kind of country we want to become, what the principles and values upon which it will be based are and, most importantly, what the strategic framework is within which we will put policy together.I am accused every day of being naive and idealistic. I hope my critics do not stop accusing me of that because I know that, when they stop, I will be irrelevant. When will we live in a country where the Leader of the Opposition and the government of the day are able to talk to one another about the meaningful problems this nation faces without the confrontation, ideological posturing and personal invective that characterise much of contemporary political debate? When that day arises, then I believe the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), One Nation and similar political parties will not attract a fraction of the support they currently do.561722:40:005617Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—In an adjournment debate last week I spoke about a working paper produced by the Australian Institute of Family Studies on the issue of home ownership for low income people. I would like to continue this theme tonight. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that, in the 10 years to 1996, the rate of home ownership in Australia dropped from 71 per cent to 66 per cent. Mr Sam Pennisi, the Victorian president of Australia's largest property group, First National Real Estate, is quoted in the Sunday Age of 8 March as saying:While in 1976 there were more homes being purchased than rented, the opposite is now true. This reflects the growing polarisation of wealth in Australia and the decline of the country's middle class.Mr Pennisi said that the primary reason for the decline in the home ownership was that people increasingly could not afford a house even in dual income families. He said:Lower interest rates are an insufficient catalyst for home ownership in a country with high unemployment, without job security and without adequate incomes.Mr Pennisi said that deregulation of the labour market and further lowering of average wages by the federal government would be merely another impediment.The Victorian Director of the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mr Norman Huon, said that low interest rates and inflation had made housing more affordable than ever, except for low income groups. Mr Huon said that some financial advisers were suggesting that shares and other forms of investment produce better returns than home ownership, but the average punter is not well versed in these things.Other research carried out by the Housing and Urban Research Institute supports the finding of the Australian Institute of Family Studies. This institute found that in 1997 the proportion of householders buying their own home fell to 27 per cent. The institute executive director, Professor Mike Berry, says this compares with the rate of 35 per cent 10 years earlier. Sydney is the hardest hit by the trend against home ownership according to Professor Berry. He said:Only 64% of Sydneysiders now own their own home compared with the national average of just under 70%.Professor Berry said the number of young families taking out mortgages is declining:Twenty years ago people in their early 30s were more likely to have a mortgage than their counterparts today. In 1975 58% of households in the 30-35 age group had a mortgage. By 1994 this proportion had declined to 43%.Professor Berry said that the reason fewer people were buying homes is linked to several social and economic factors. These include trends towards later marriage and child bearing, job insecurity and declining affordability.Government members get all excited about reducing the deficit and other economic indicators, but as the Australian public has found out you can have all these economic indicators pointing to a strong economy and still have a large percentage of our population struggling economically. Brian Howe, who was a very distinguished ALP minister, said in a recent speech:The failure to address the central issue of supply and affordability of rental housing is particularly harsh on the younger generation. With many young people dissaving at a time in their life when earlier generations were saving they are finding it increasingly difficult to access home ownership.After all the other financial and employment changes forced upon Australia in the past decade, the threat to the dream of owning your own home is just another mark of living in the age of insecurity.Sometimes it does pay to look not only back in history but across the Tasman for ideas. A magnificent scheme was introduced for people in New Zealand, which was a great boon to those on lower incomes to enable them to buy their own home. Parents were able to cash in their family allowance that would be payable to their children between the ages of one and 15 and this was then used as a deposit for their own homes.Many group homes were built. Young people who would have been only public rental tenants were able to become home owners and ratepayers and, as they got older, they ended up with a reasonable asset. If only we could get people of such vision and courage in Australia as was evident among the New Zealand Labour government of many years ago which introduced this great scheme. This may well be a scheme that could be a huge boost for home ownership and, of course, for the building industry. It is certainly worth a second look and is worthy of a close investigation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory, on behalf of all members I extend to him our profound sympathy on the death of his father.561822:45:005618Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise this evening to speak about the current takeover bid for Pauls Ltd, the largest milk supplier in the Northern Territory. The major purpose of my speech is to alert the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to the potential loss of employment in my electorate. Pauls also operates the Coca-Cola franchise and manufactures and distributes a large range of soft drinks as well as other dairy produce. It also exports to Brunei from Darwin. Pauls employs some 130 people in my electorate. Pauls first started in Darwin in about 1956. The first milk that we bought from Pauls was reconstituted milk—shipped in tins shaped like kerosene tins—from Queensland. Pauls also operates quite extensively in South-East Asia and China. The total number of employees in the company is about 1,500.National Foods made a takeover bid for Pauls on 28 April which was withdrawn this afternoon. A counter bid was made by Parmalat, an Italian based international dairy industry conglomerate owned by the Tanzi family.I want to raise some concerns about the Parmalat takeover in the interests of my electorate. In the early 1990s Parmalat was a medium sized outfit focused on the Italian domestic market. In the five years between 1992 and 1997 Parmalat acquired control of more than 80 companies in over 15 countries. I am not necessarily insinuating any wrongdoing, but I rise in this adjournment debate to raise certain matters regarding employment, plant rationalisation and competition.Parmalat has not hesitated to spend heavily to secure its objectives. In a raid on a South African dairy company, Bonnita Holdings Ltd, Parmalat paid almost double the market price. With Bonnita shares trading at 1.55 rand, Parmalat offered 2.82 rand cash for each share.Expanding to become a major overseas player while retaining control of the operation in the Tanzi family seems to have taken a lot of juggling. Some of the stock and currency manipulations by Parmalat and its holding company, Coloniale, have attracted media attention in Italy itself. On 11 March this year, the reputable Milan daily Corriere Della Sera posed some questions about the corporate manipulations the Tanzi family was pushing though while, at the same time, apparently borrowing large sums through Swiss banks. To quote the Corriere Della Sera:The source of Parmalat's funding has been shrouded in secrecy.The Corriere Della Sera went on to say:At Parmalat's headquarters the identity of the banks was kept under heavy wraps.Parmalat pays high prices while retaining family control and avoiding the scrutiny of a public listing, which seems to add up to plant rationalisations and laying off of employees. l say that because this time last year Parmalat was expanding its interests in Canada and merging a couple of Canadian companies in the process. In the Toronto Globe and the Toronto Mail on 29 July 1997, a spokesman was reported as saying there would be:Lay offs and possible plant closings in Ontario and Quebec as a result of the merger.The spokesman also said:There will be undoubtedly some downsizing as we merge the two companies probably in some plant locations as well as some corporation functions. A takeover by Parmalat will not necessarily lead to greater employment for Australians, as in actual fact it has led to less employment for Canadians. A worldwide dairy empire does not necessarily mean greater employment opportunities; it may mean greater rationalisation.It seems that Parmalat's competitive track record in Italy deserves some scrutiny. It appears that Parmalat is not above anti-competitive conduct, according to a report from Reuters news service. Reuters reported on 11 August 1995 that Italy's anti-trust authority was investigating market rigging between Parmalat and other companies and that the market rigging allegations extended outside Italy and across a range of dairy products. Reuters also reported that in 1996 the Milan public prosecutor launched an investigation into allegations of complicity in fraudulent bankruptcy against the head of Parmalat.At the moment all this may be just a lot of smoke, but I want protection for my constituents. We do not have anything like enough competition in the Territory. Through its isolation it lends itself to higher prices, and we want to avoid that at all costs. We do not want any job losses. We do not want the Paul's Darwin plant to be closed and the milk trucked in from the south. For all these reasons I will be writing to the Treasurer to ask him to carefully check the bona fides of all parties involved in this takeover and to act to protect the best interests of my constituents and all Australians.561922:50:005619O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I thought I would take a few minutes of the time of the House to outline Labor's position in relation to the current crisis facing pork producers and my response to some of the misinformation that the government is now peddling to people who are in a very difficult situation.First of all, let me confirm the advice that I gave the Pork Council in a letter in May this year where I said—and I am unequivocal about this—that pork producers should have been given the same opportunity as chicken growers to present their case on issues rang ing from disease and quarantine to market impact and the threat to jobs and small business arising from the increase in imports. I said then—and have been proven correct—that the government had badly underestimated the impact of the Asian downturn on the Australian economy. I also said that it was now clear that, apart from the imports of pork, there was now intense competition from beef, lamb and seafood products which had lost market opportunities in Asia and were ending up back on the domestic market. I said that the combined effect had dramatically driven down prices for the pork producers.I said that, having failed to anticipate the above, the government's strategy of encouraging increased imports while helping the industry develop export opportunities was now in tatters. I said that, with plan A collapsing, obviously there was no plan B. I went on to say that the government had completely failed to develop and implement a properly funded industry restructuring and support package.As I said at the time, to add insult to injury, all the above serves to highlight the absurd decision of the government to scrap Labor's truth in labelling food laws—which were ready to go at the change of government—and dump the Australian made campaign. Under heavy pressure from citrus growers and pork producers, 2½ years down the track we have this legislation back in the parliament in the form in which Labor had it in the first place.On 10 June I issued a press release in response to the second government announcement of a support package for the industry. Again, what I said at the time was absolutely correct. The package announced on 9 June by the minister contained not one single dollar of support for any of these pork producers who are facing wipe-outs of their business on a daily basis. The proposal that the government would ask the Productivity Commission to conduct an inquiry into the effective imports on the market demand is laughable because that inquiry will take a minimum of six months to conduct. I have yet to see the Productivity Commission proposing anything that represented supporting Australian manu facturers or processors against competition from imports. In fact, its whole thrust is to open the economy up to more and more of that kind of import competition. Obviously that is a stunt designed to get the government through a pretty difficult period with the pork producers.On 10 June I announced that Labor, if we are elected at the next federal election, will put in place a 12-month capping of pork imports at the levels that operated between 1992 and 1996 in order to give the industry and me the time to properly work through a restructure and an adjustment package. The government has been saying that Labor is making up new rules. All I say here is that this measure is completely consistent with the safeguard measures that we negotiated in the GATT agreements for just such a circumstance. The only problem for pork producers is that there are none of them on the government's front bench. On the front bench are only wool, wheat and beef producers, the bulk commodity suppliers who have been getting the gains, while industries like pork, salmon and chicken have been traded off. I do not think that is an appropriate way to go about the trade negotiations. We have put our cards on the table. I call on the government to improve on the package and give the same support that we are giving. (Time expired)562022:55:005620Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—I want to take up the remarks made by the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) earlier in the evening with reference to the `Vision Today, Leaders Tomorrow' essay competition conducted by the New South Wales division of the Young Liberals. I note that the six winners of the competition are present in the gallery this evening. I congratulate Michael Reville, Kathleen McCoy, Gareth Ward, Shireen Hawashin, Mark Sutton and Harold Legaspie.Their presence this evening and their contribution is a good thing for all of us who sit on the floor of the chamber in that it reminds us that we govern not in some obtuse vacuum but ultimately for the benefit of all Australians and, in particular, for the generations who will follow us. I listened to the remarks of the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham). The member for Werriwa is an independent critical thinker who has been prepared to stand apart from the herd. He is clearly a person of considerable intellectual depth and grasp and has a contribution to make to the country's future. I regret the fact that he—like many of us, Mr Speaker; I don't want to make a partisan point here—finds almost irresistible the opportunity to attack his opponent, to launch some telling verbal blow.I feel an awareness of the fact that we in this chamber can lose touch with the perception that we create with the thousands listening, with the hundreds of thousands who watch those small snippets of question time. There is a gulf between those of us who sit in this chamber and the way we conduct our affairs and the attitudes, the customs and the behaviour of the Australians whom we are meant to represent.That gulf of alienation is really beginning to express itself with force in the political climate today. As one of the newer and younger members of the parliament, I feel a temerity in ventilating these concerns. I feel a sense of humility that I do not want to pass judgment on the institution which I feel very proud to belong to, which I have so recently joined and from which I may, according to the will of the Australian people, be summarily ejected. But that is as it should be. I want to reflect on just a couple of aspects of the functioning of this place. I particularly ask my colleagues to accept these remarks with the humility and in the sort of neophyte context in which they are offered.Mr Speaker, I, like so many of my colleagues on both sides, feel a deep attachment to the institution of the parliament. I am concerned by the extent to which it has fallen in the estimation of the public we serve. I am concerned by the extent to which the executive has come to so completely dominate the proceedings of the parliament. I see you, Mr Speaker, as the father of the House recall the custom by which you were dragged to the chair by a couple of your colleagues, unwillingly as it were, in reference to the historical fact of those moments where the parliament has stood up and asserted its independence, if you like, against the overreaching excesses of the executive.I make these remarks as a loyal and committed member of the Howard-Fischer coalition government, as a partisan among partisans. I am an advocate of competition, of efficiency, of economic reform, of many of those principles which are causing concern among the Australian people today, but I recognise that we need to direct our attention to the efficacy of this chamber and this place. It is the clearing house of tensions and ideas among the Australian people. We need to continually work to refine its performance, to strengthen its independence and to find ways to make it a living, breathing, vibrant forum which effectively represents the hopes and the aspirations of the Australian people.Mr Speaker, you have a critical road to play in that regard. We have valued your various statements of independence. I look forward to their reassertion over the weeks ahead. I note the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) at the table. I have been encouraged by his own concerns for the strength and independence of the parliament. I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and his cabinet colleagues in the interests of all Australians to look at the measures by which the parliament may be strengthened.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—I require that the debate be extended.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The debate may be extended.562123:00:005621Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I can understand the concern of the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) about the provenance of some of the leading figures in the One Nation movement, but I should point out to him that the Labor Party for many years also harboured the member for Kalgoor lie (Mr Campbell), who claims to be One Nation's intellectual godfather.Anyone who read my reference for David Oldfield would realise that I was blissfully unaware of his grand-scale treachery. I suppose it is worth letting the House know that, after the Daily Telegraph published that reference, many of my colleagues approached me asking for references on the grounds that if I would write a reference like that for a complete snake, what would I do for a good bloke. I put on record my complete contempt for someone who would procure references under false pretences to then be used as hostages to secure future good behaviour. Writing that reference was a mistake, but I am not going to compound one mistake with another. I am certainly not going to allow a too trusting reference to gag me from revealing what I now know about the real nature of One Nation Ltd. I should probably point out to the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) just one sentence in that reference:David has too much to offer and is too strong a personality to enjoy for long the essentially derivative life of a political staffer.That was one prophesy in that reference.It is interesting that the member for Oxley failed to enter this chamber at all last week to respond to the questions I placed before her about One Nation's fundamentally undemocratic structure. She was, however, happy to appear on national television with David Oldfield in one of the most remarkable performances since Tarzan and Jane. The member for Oxley says that she is not a politician and that is true to this extent: no other politician in Australia would go on national television with her minder by her side as a kind of human autocue.My concern is with the member for Oxley's statement that candidates, in this case the One Nation candidate for Farrer, would have a big say in deciding where One Nation preferences went. This is simply untrue. Surely the member for Oxley knows that preferences are decided by Pauline Hanson's One Nation Ltd, which should be renamed David Oldfield's One Nation Ltd—a company where she can be out voted by the two Davids. And in case she has forgotten, I refer to a letter to her written by a Queensland One Nation candidate Terry Sharples who says:On Thursday evening 11 June 1998, David Oldfield telephoned me at approximately 9.40 p.m. and attempted to change the manner of my preference allocation. This action was contrary to the written agreements I had with the party prior to my nomination wherein I retained the right to allocate the preferences in my seat with the further stipulation that the party could not allocate preferences without my written agreement to the same.The member for Oxley also said that anyone can join One Nation. I suspect that anyone can indeed join Pauline Hanson's One Nation Members Inc. As far as I am aware, that is the case. But this is completely controlled by Pauline Hanson's One Nation Ltd, the company where Pauline Hanson can be out voted by the two Davids. In case the member for Oxley has forgotten the secret pact she made with the two Davids, I refer her to the Pauline Hanson One Nation Ltd memorandum and articles of association, which state:Every applicant for membership of the company shall be proposed by one and seconded by another member of the company, to both of whom the applicant shall be personally known. The application for membership shall be made in writing, signed by the applicant and his proposer and seconder and shall be in such form as the committee from time to time prescribes.In other words, One Nation is a closed shop of which the MUA would be very proud.The member for Oxley said that branches preselect candidates. Maybe she genuinely believes that, but it has been widely reported that every single One Nation office bearer is required to sign an undated resignation letter before they take office. The branches may indeed preselect candidates but the two Davids de-select candidates and that means that this party is in effect a dictatorship. It is not a democracy but a dictatorship and the dictator is none other than David Oldfield.I refer to the rules of the Pauline Hanson Support Movement Inc., which I believe has now become the Pauline Hanson One Nation Members Inc. (Extension of time granted) I am quoting from those rules, which state that the movement is to:. . . take every care to avoid any association with any person whose past history or current activities would cause adverse effect to the interests of Pauline Hanson's political endeavours.I ask the member for Oxley: why has she allowed her party to be taken over by a charismatic psychotic whose activities most resemble those of Rasputin?In that interview, David Oldfield was constantly putting words into the mouth of his political mistress. It was Oldfield who claimed in that interview that David Ettridge's 12.5 per cent commission deal was a lie, but he was not prepared at any stage to disclose exactly what kind of an arrangement David Ettridge was on. Why not? Is that because it is more than 12.5 per cent? Is it, in fact, 25 per cent, the figure which Terry Burke used to collect in the Western Australian Labor Party?Oldfield claimed in that interview that David Ettridge put his money through Vanuatu not because it was a tax haven but because that was where he was working for World Vision. I have a statement here from World Vision, and I quote from that:Every year World Vision writes many hundreds of cheques to literally hundreds of service providers. As we now operate in 103 countries, it is not unusual for us to make payments overseas.But, and this is the point, Mr Speaker:Payments made to David Ettridge while he served as a consultant were in fact sent to a business address in Manly, NSW.The presumption World Vision makes in its commercial dealings with corporations or individuals is the same as that made by virtually all others operating in the Australian economy—that the other party is operating legally and ethically, unless there is evidence to the contrary.It is simply not practically possible . . . for World Vision to scrutinise the addresses of the parent companies of all our service providers and evaluate whether or not we thought they may be engaging in tax minimisation or other unethical practices.I thought it was particularly sad of David Oldfield to associate World Vision with the sort of scams run by David Ettridge.It is my recollection that the member for Oxley, on numerous occasions, has attacked big companies for using tax havens overseas to minimise their tax liability, yet the national director of the One Nation Party has done exactly the same thing. The member for Oxley needs to know that the national director of her party has done exactly the same thing that she accuses big companies of doing and condemns big companies for doing. So I pose this question: either the member for Oxley is just another hypocritical politician—in fact, she is far more hypocritical than the average run of politicians in this House—or she has been completely duped by the two Davids who have hijacked her party. I table the documents referred to in my speech.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I doubt that the honourable member has a capacity to table those documents in the adjournment debate because it is not a matter strictly within his responsibility. It is one of those quirks of our standing orders.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Does he need leave?EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I seek leave.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Leave has been granted. You can do it with leave.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will table the reference, if you like, as well.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being almost 11.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.23:10:005623House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.Notices5623The following notices were given:Mr Nehl to move:That this House acknowledges the difficulties being faced by the Australian deer industry including the fact that in spite of a market already existing in Europe, Australian venison producers have great difficulty in satisfying demand because of the lack of export abattoirs.Mrs De-Anne Kelly to move:That the House (a) notes with concern that a recent change in the interpretation of sales tax legislation has led to cane haul-out trucks and spare parts no longer being regarded as sales tax-exempt and (b) calls for the reversal of this interpretation at the first opportunity.Mr Reith to move:That:(1) Standing order 193 (When division may be taken) be amended by omitting the second paragraph and substituting: Provided that, on sitting Mondays, any division called for in the House on a question, other than a motion moved by a Minister, prior to questions without notice being called on or during presentation of petitions or private Members' business, shall stand deferred until the grievance debate has concluded or been postponed.(2) Standing order 248 be amended to read:Reasons for disagreeing248 When the House disagrees to any amendments of the Senate to a bill, the Member who moved the motion—That the amendment(s) be disagreed to—shall present to the House written reasons for the House not agreeing to the amendments proposed by the Senate. A message returning the bill to the Senate shall contain any such reasons.(3) Standing order 258 be amended to read:Reasons for disagreeing to further Senate amendments258 When the House disagrees to any amendments made by the Senate to the amendments of the House, the Member who moved the motion—That the amendment(s) be disagreed to—shall present to the House written reasons for the House not agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate. A message returning the bill to the Senate shall contain any such reasons.(4) The following sessional orders concerning the operation of the Main Committee be adopted as standing orders: (a) 81 (Debate confined to present question—Exceptions); (b) 91 (Time limits); (c) 274 (Sittings and adjournment); (d) 274A (Adjournment debates); (e) 275A (Statements by Members); and (f) 276 (How questions decided—Division not possible).Documents5623The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 29 June 1998:Air Force Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 134.Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 160.Australian Communications Authority Act—Determination 1997 Radiocommunications (Charges) No. 1 (Amendment No. 2 of 1998).Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 143. Child Support (Assessment) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 164.Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Notice to show cause under section 58, 16 June 1998.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Exemptions 1998 Nos. CASA 17, CASA 25.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 161.Currency Act—Determination 1998 No. 4.Dried Fruits Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 144.Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 137, 138.Higher Education Funding Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. T12, T13, T14, T15.Honey Levy Act (No. 1), Honey Levy Act (No. 2) and Honey Export Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 145.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 163.International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 135, 136.Marine Navigation Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 166.Marine Navigation Levy Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 165.Marine Navigation (Regulatory Functions) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 167.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 139.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 141.Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 140.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 151, 155.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Deer Slaughter Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 150.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Grain Legumes Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 154.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Export Charge Act and Horticultural Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 148, 149, 152, 157.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, Horticultural Levy Act, Horticultural Export Charge Act and National Residue Survey Administration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 146.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 147.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Oilseeds Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 153.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and Wheat Industry Fund Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 158.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Determination 1998 No. 15.Rice Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 142.Social Security Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 159.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation 1998 No. 5.Telecommunications Act 1997—Instrument 1998 Telecommunications Numbering Plan Amendment (No. 2).Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 133.Trade Practices Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 162.Answers to Questions in Writing5625The following answers to questions were circulated:5625(Question No. 2733)27335625Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) Did Optus launch Project Aurora in February 1997 claiming that it would be operational nationally before the end of 1997.(2) Is the platform for Aurora in operation; if not, what is the reason for the delay.(3) Is the Minister able to say whether Optus demonstrated decoders on the Aurora system at the recent Cable and Satellite Exhibition in Sydney; if so, who were the manufacturers of the decoders.(4) Is the Minister able to say whether Optus promised that decoders for Aurora would cost $750.(5) Is the Minister able to say (a) how many of the decoders referred to in part (3) will be available to Australian purchasers at $750, (b) from which manufacturers will Optus source the decoders it promised would cost $750 and (c) have the decoders been demonstrated on the Aurora platform.(6) Is the Minister able to say whether the decoder price of $750 includes dealer mark-ups and distribution charges; if not, will Optus clearly state what it is undertaking in writing.(7) On what date is the Aurora digital service expected to start in Western Australia.(8) Is the Minister able to say whether Optus has been granted access to the Irdeto CA system; if so, why is Aurora not operational.(9) Is the Minister able to say whether decoders need to be modified to work with the Aurora system; if so, does the relatively small market for the decoders mean that there will be a single manufacturer and no competition in the sale of the Aurora decoders.(10) Is the Minister able to say whether Optus has advised potential viewers that it will pay for the price differential from Optus' stated price for decoders and viewers will not have to pay for receivers.(11) Is it a fact that Galaxy retains an exclusive right to use the Irdeto CA system for pay TV in Australia.(12) Is the Minister able to say whether Scientific Atlanta's Power-Vu system could be engineered to work with the Irdeto CA system via simulcrypt simultaneous encryption.(13) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to distribution difficulties in the Scientific Atlanta dealer network in Western Australia during the 3 month analog and digital simulcast period; if so, is the Minister able to say whether Optus has developed a distribution strategy for its decoders.(14) Is the Minister able to say what services Optus will be able to deliver on the Aurora platform that will not be available on the Pan Am satellite.(15) Is the Minister able to say what other international systems are compatible with the Aurora platform.(16) Is the Minister able to say whether Optus has a legal problem in providing access to pay TV services; if so, does Optus have a solution.5625Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions:(1) Optus announced in February 1997 the investment of $25 million on digital satellite technology, known as Aurora, and that the transition to digital operations would be completed by the end of 1997.(2) Optus has advised that the Aurora platform is operational in that all necessary testing, trialling and other modelling has taken place. Optus has advised that there has been a delay in the commencement of services from the Aurora platform due to the initial delay in finalising the agreement for the use of a conditional access system, which offers compatibility with certain pay TV services.(3) Optus has advised that it demonstrated decoders from the following manufacturers at the Cable and Satellite Exhibition in Sydney:. Comstream/Panasonic. UEC. SunMoonStar. Pace.Decoders from the following manufacturers have also been demonstrated separately on the Aurora system:. Nokia. Hyundai. Annan. Optus has advised that Comstream/Panasonic and UEC have been endorsed for use on Aurora. Optus has selected the UEC decoder to replace existing analogue decoders for direct-to-home reception in the context of the digital conversion of remote area broadcasting services. Optus expects that these decoders will also be suitable for many retransmission sites. Optus is finalising arrangements in respect of retransmission sites requiring professional model decoders.While Optus considers that selection of the UEC model is desirable to facilitate the smooth transition of viewers to digital RABS reception, it intends that other endorsed decoders will be made available in the future to increase consumer choice in accessing the range of services being developed on the Aurora platform. The UEC decoder will, of course, also be able to access these services.(4) Optus has advised that it has not guaranteed a price of $750 for decoders.(5) (a) Optus has advised that the recommended retail price of the UEC decoder will be $999.(b) Optus has advised that it will be sourcing Aurora decoders from all endorsed suppliers.(c) Yes.(6) Optus has advised that the price of decoders represents the final cost to consumers, including the cost of the smart card, conditional access module and dealer and distribution charges. I understand that decoders used primarily for reception of remote area broadcasting services, on a non-profit basis, are exempt from sales tax.(7) Optus has advised that it plans to commence digital services in Western Australia by the end of June 1998, but that this could be delayed until July, depending on progress with the ABC's purchase of encoders. Optus has advised that it will provide an extended dual transmission period in Western Australia, through to the mid October 1998, to minimise any disruptions to consumers.(8) Optus has advised that it obtained permission in December 1997 for the use of the Irdeto conditional access system on the Aurora platform. The initial delay in negotiating this agreement has resulted in a consequential delay in the commencement of services from the Aurora platform.(9) Optus has advised that there are no software problems that have required special modification of the decoders. Optus has further advised that there will be multiple suppliers and, therefore, competition in the provision of the Aurora decoders, some time after the initial RABS digital conversion.(10) Optus has advised that it neither made, nor authorised, any official statements that it would meet any difference between the Commonwealth subsidy and the price of the decoders. Optus has further advised that it is not aware of any advice provided to the public that the company would meet any such cost difference.(11) I understand that the rights to use the Irdeto conditional access system to deliver satellite pay TV services in Australia is currently the subject of commercial negotiation within the context of the liquidation of the assets of the Australis Media group of companies.(12) Telstra has advised that the Scientific Atlanta PowerVu system is capable of being engineered to work with the Irdeto CA system, and that preliminary discussions on this matter have taken place between Scientific Atlanta and Irdeto. I understand that, at this stage, the two companies do not consider that there is a commercial imperative to progress integration of the CA systems.(13) Telstra understands that there has been adequate stocks of domestic digital decoders available for sale in Western Australia since November-December 1997. Telstra has advised, however, that there was a temporary shortage of commercial decoders for retransmission sites due to the late arrival of one shipment in late February 1998, rather than mid-February as scheduled. I understand that Scientific Atlanta provided interim decoders to affected customers during this period. Telstra has also advised that there may have been some instances of delays in supply of decoders to viewers where orders were placed very late, or where some local dealers failed to act diligently in filling orders.Optus has indicated that it accords a high priority to ensuring an adequate and consistent supply of decoders for the digital conversion of remote area broadcasting services. The company has advised that it has appointed a master distributor, Nationwide Antenna Systems, is arranging multiple distribution points in each State/Territory and direct links to a network of retailers/installers, and is ensuring the adequate availability of equipment for the commencement of digital conversions.(14) At this stage, it is not possible to draw a final comparison between Optus and Telstra-delivered broadcasting services to remote areas in WA.Optus has contracted to digitally transmit ABC and SBS television and radio services nationally, including local time ABC TV services in WA, and the Westlink and Horizon services. I understand that Optus has not yet reached a final decision as to what other services it might provide to RABS viewers in WA.Telstra has contracted to digitally transmit the GWN television service in WA, and is providing companion ABC and SBS television services in local time, and has undertaken to provide all ABC radio services in WA, and the WA FM radio service. Transmission arrangements are yet to be finalised in respect of the second commercial television service for remote and regional WA for the operation of which the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) allocated a licence to WIN Television on 1 April this year.Elsewhere in Australia, all RABS operators have contracted with Optus for the digital transmission of their services. In total, Optus has contracts for delivery on the Aurora platform of nine out of the ten RABS services, and for delivery of the Westlink, Horizon, Centrelink, CITEC and Sky Channel services.Both Optus and Telstra have indicated that their digital decoders potentially afford access to a range of other communications services including data transfer, Internet access and pay TV.(15) Optus has advised that satellite systems in Australia, South Africa, Continental Africa, Middle East, Thailand, Scandinavia, Greece and Eastern Europe are compatible with the Aurora platform.(16) Optus has advised that it has neither a technical nor legal difficulty in providing a satellite based platform for the delivery of pay TV in Australia. Its Aurora decoders will potentially afford access to any pay TV service provided using the Irdeto CA system, although such a service is not currently available in remote areas.5627(Question No. 2838)28385627Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 April 1998:Has Mr P. Houlihan or any company or organisation associated with him been engaged by him or his Department since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) what remuneration was paid and (b) will he provide details of (i) individual sums paid, (ii) the purposes for which they were paid and (iii) the uses to which they were put.5627Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As I already stated in my answer to Question on Notice No. 390, asked by Mr Albanese on 18 June 1996, the only occasion on which my department engaged Mr Paul Houlihan was for the duration of the Government's Industrial Relations Taskforce in 1996.(a) Mr Houlihan was paid $23,868.18 in total.(b) (i) The breakdown is as follows: Consulting—20,329.70; Travel—1,498.02; Accommodation—1,058.19; Car Hire/Taxis—982.27.(ii) These funds were for his work with the taskforce as a consultant. (iii) Mr Houlihan was also reimbursed for some expenses as outlined above in part (i).Note: Prior to October 1997 the Maritime Transport Group of my Department was within the Department of Transport and Regional Development. In response to Question 2839 the Minister for Transport and Regional Development has provided the answer to the honourable member's questions in relation to the Maritime Transport Group.5627(Question No. 2874)28745627Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 7 April 1998:How many veterans have (a) applied for and (b) been granted a disability pension based on their service (i) with the naval component of the Far East Strategic Reserve during the Malayan Emergency, (ii) at RAAF Ubon Thailand during the Vietnam War and (iii) in the other operational areas identified in the 1997-1998 Budget announcement.5627Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:In the period 13 May 1997 to 1 May 1998:(i) Far East Strategic Reserve—Naval Component(a) Applications: 201; (b) Grants: 134.(ii) RAAF Ubon, Thailand.(a) Applications: 24; (b) Grants: 22.(iii) Other operational areas identified in the 1997-98 Budget announcement.(a) Applications: 5; (b) Grants: 5.Claims in respect of service with the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (BCOF) are not included. Most BCOF veterans were already covered by the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and claims by remaining BCOF veterans who became eligible as result of the 1997-1998 Budget announcement cannot be readily identified.5627(Question No. 2917)29175627Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) What was the (a) name and (b) affiliation of each person who (i) attended and (ii) received the agenda for Plant Industries Committee meetings during 1997. (2) What was the (a) name and (b) affiliation of each person who (i) attended and (ii) received the agenda for meetings of the committee looking at good agricultural practices in the use of genetically modified organisms referred to in the answer to question No. 2463 (Hansard , 3 December 1997, page 12027).(3) Which of the committees referred to in parts (1) and (2) discussed (a) the proposal for new regulations for gene technology, (b) the proposed Gene Technology Office, (c) the proposed Gene Technology Liaison Committee, (d) the possible functions of the Gene Technology Liaison Office or Gene Technology Liaison Committee and (e) representation on the Gene Technology Office or Gene Technology Liaison Committee during 1997 and when did those discussion take place in each case.(4) On how many occasions during 1997 did either committee discuss the proposed (a) new regulations for gene technology, (b) Gene Technology Office or (c) Gene Technology Liaison Committee.(5) Did either committee discuss during 1997 the (a) use of insect-resistant transgenic plants and (b) potential for insects to become resistant or tolerant to the insecticidal substances in some insect-resistant transgenic plants; if so, in each case, (i) when and (ii) were the discussions connected to discussions of the new regulations for gene technology.(6) How many times did either committee discuss insect-resistant transgenic plants.(7) Did either committee discuss during 1997 (a) the use of herbicide-resistant transgenic plants and (b) potential problems with the use of herbicide-resistant transgenic plants; if so, in each case, (i) when and (ii) were the discussions connected to discussions of the new regulations for gene technology.(8) How many times did either committee discuss herbicide-resistant transgenic plants.(9) Did either committee discuss during 1997 (a) the potential for genes to be transferred between transgenic plants and other plants, (b) potential for genetically modified plants to become weeds, (c) use of virus-resistant transgenic plants and (d) possible risks that may be posed by the use of virus-resistant transgenic plants; if so, in each case, (i) when and (ii) were the discussions connected to discussions of the new regulations for gene technology.(10) How many times did either committee discuss virus-resistant transgenic plants.(11) Were (a) members or (b) secretariat officers of the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee (GMAC) (i) present at discussions referred to in the preceding parts or (ii) given the agenda or minutes; if so, which (A) discussions and (B) members or secretariat officers.(12) Were officers or staff of the CSIRO) (a) present at the discussions or (b) given the agenda or minutes; if so, which (i) discussions and (ii) officers or staff.(13) Is the CSIRO engaged in projects whose goal is to produce insect-resistant transgenic plants, herbicide-resistant transgenic plants and virus-resistant transgenic plants.(14) Did a GMAC member offer a view of the risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants at a meeting of either committee during 1997; if so, in each case, (a) which GMAC member, (b) when, (c) what were the views and (d) who else was present.(15) Did a CSIRO officer offer a view of the risks posed by transgenic plants at a meeting of either committee during 1997; if so, in each case, (a) which CSIRO officer, (b) when, (c) what were the views and (d) who else was present.(16) Did the committee referred to in part (2) seek during 1997 the views of a member of staff of the Cooperative Research Centre for Plant Science on the possible risks of using virus-resistant transgenic plants; if so, (a) when, (b) which member of staff of the Cooperative Research Centre for Plant Science, (c) how was the member of staff contacted and (d) when was their view received by the committee.5628Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The names and affiliations of each person who attended and received the agenda for Plant Industries Committee (PIC) meetings during 1997 are:Mr Don McNee, Dept of Primary Industries, Brisbane (Chairman PIC), Queensland Professor Snow Barlow, Bureau of Resource Sciences, DPIE, Canberra, ACT Mr John Blackstock, Dept of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne, Victoria Dr Lindsay Cook, NSW Agriculture, Orange, New South Wales Mrs Rosanna Coombes, Dept of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Kings Meadows, Tasmania Dr Niranjan Dasari, Dept of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Berrimah, Northern Territory Mr Brian Hansen, Department of Primary Industries, Adelaide, South Australia Mr John Lancashire, Ag Research, Palmerston North, New Zealand Mr Ian Longson, Agriculture Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia Mr Mick Poole, CSIRO Centre for Mediterranean Agricultural Research, Perth, WA Ms Lee-Ling Sim, Secretary Plant Industries Committee, NSW Agriculture, Orange. (2) The name and affiliation of each person who attended and received agendas for meetings of the committee looking at good agricultural practices in the use of genetically modified organisms or SCARM Working Group to Prepare `Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines for Genetically Modified Crops and Pastures' [hereafter GAP Working Group] is given below:Mr Mick Poole, representing Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management, Professor Nancy Millis, Chair Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee Dr Gary Fitt/Dr T.J. Higgins, CSIRO Dr Tony Gregson, National Farmers' Federation Dr George McLean/Mrs Philippa Rowland, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Dr Ray Shorter/Dr Bryan Whan, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Mr Des Boyland, ANZECC, Dr Andina Faragher/Ms Gillian Allen/Ms Kirsty McLean, GMAC Secretariat staff.The Terms of Reference for SCARM Working Group to Prepare `Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines for Genetically Modified Crops and Pastures' were:(a) Prepare guidelines for the development and commercial use of genetically modified crops and pastures in Australian agriculture; and(b) address specifically such issues as the use of herbicide-resistance genes as markers, the potential for outcrossing of transgenic plants, the deployment of these genes (herbicide-resistance, Bt and virus resistance) in rotational systems and prepare a checklist of sustainability issues.It was agreed to that the scope of the SCARM Working Group to Prepare `Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines for Genetically Modified Crops and Pastures' was to be general policies for the deployment of genes in transgenic crops such that agricultural benefits were maximised and environmental risks minimised. The Working Group was to consider the agricultural and environmental impact of genes in agricultural crops and their effects on crop systems, particularly those genes conferring insect resistance, herbicide resistance (including marker genes), virus resistance and fungus resistance.Given this brief, this working group discussed many of the issues raised in questions 5-10 at each of the four meetings held on 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997.(3) Discussions occurred in the following committees at the following times on:(a) the proposal for new regulations for gene technology.(b) the proposed Gene Technology Office (GTO).(c) the proposed Gene Technology Liaison Committee (GTLC).(d) the possible functions of the GTO or GTLC.(e) representation on the GTO or GTLC. PIC 28 (8-10 October 1997) discussed the proposed establishment of a Gene Technology Office.The issues (a) through (e) did not form part of the terms of reference of the SCARM GAP Working Group. Brief updates were provided to the group on (a) and (b) on 10 June, 13 November 1997, the other issues were not discussed.The SCARM Working Group on the Regulation of Gene Technology was the joint Commonwealth and State group responsible for examining issues associated with the regulatory system for genetically modified organisms.(4) The committees discussed the following issues on the following numbers of occasions:(a) the proposal for new regulations for gene technology.(b) the proposed Gene Technology Office (GTO).(c) the proposed Gene Technology Liaison Committee (GTLC).Plant Industries Committee discussed (a) and (b) once in October 1997.The SCARM GAP Working Group briefly discussed issues (a) and (b) twice, in June and November, but did not discuss (c).(5) Discussions occurred on:(a) the use of insect-resistant transgenic plants.(b) the potential for insects to become resistant or tolerant to the insecticidal substances in some insect-resistant transgenic plantsThe SCARM GAP Working Party discussed both issues on 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997. The discussions were not connected to discussions of the new regulations for gene technology.(6) The SCARM GAP Working Party discussed insect-resistant transgenic plants four times, at each of its meetings.PIC 28 discussed insect-resistant transgenic plants once, at its meeting in October 1997.(7) Discussions occurred on:(a) the use of herbicide-resistant transgenic plants.(b) potential problems with herbicide-resistant transgenic plants.The SCARM GAP Working Party discussed this issue on 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997.PIC 28 discussed these issues at its meeting in October 1997.The discussions were not connected to discussions of the new regulations for gene technology.(8) Herbicide-resistant transgenic plants were discussed by the SCARM GAP Working Party discussed this issue on 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997.PIC 27 discussed the Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops workshop organised by the CRC for Plant Sciences and BRS in Canberra (11-13 March 1997) on 22-24 October 1996 and were presented with the workshop recommendations at PIC 28, 8-10 October 1997.(9) Discussions were held during 1997 on:(a) the potential for genes to be transferred between transgenic plants and other plants.(b) potential for genetically modified plants to become weeds.(c) use of virus-resistant transgenic plants.(d) possible risks that may be posed by the use of virus-resistant transgenic plants.All these issues were raised in a report to PIC in September 1995 from the BRS Workshop, entitled Herbicide-Resistant Crops and Pastures in Australian Farming Systems.These issues were also discussed by the SCARM GAP Working Party 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997.The discussions were not connected to discussions of the new regulations for gene technology.(10) Virus-resistant transgenic plants were discussed: By SCARM GAP Working Party on 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997.PIC 28 (October 1997) discussed the need for further work to be carried out to clarify the potential for a new virus to emerge as the result of viral recombination between plants carrying virus resistance genes and viruses that naturally infect plants.(11) Members/secretariat officers of GMAC were:(a) present at discussions referred to above.(b) given the agenda or minutes.Professor Nancy Millis, as Chair of the SCARM GAP Working Group was present at every meeting and would have been given both the minutes and the agenda for each meeting.Andina Faragher, Gillian Allen and Kirsty McLean are GMAC staff who have provided Secretariat support for the SCARM GAP Working Group and one of them was present and provided with the agenda and minutes of each meeting.(12) Officers or staff of the CSIRO were:(a) present at discussions referred to above.(b) given the agenda or minutes.Dr Gary Fitt and Dr T J Higgins represented CSIRO on the SCARM GAP Working Group and one of them was present and provided with the agenda and minutes of each meeting. (13) Yes, CSIRO is engaged in projects whose goal is to produce insect-resistant transgenic plants, herbicide-resistant transgenic plants and virus-resistant transgenic plants.(14) The risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants were discussed at several meetings of the SCARM GAP and GMAC members would have taken part in the discussions.(a) Professor Nancy Millis.(b) on 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997.(c) Views presented are not attributable to individual members of the Working Group.(d) Refer to the members listed in answers given to questions (1) and (2).(15) The issue of the risks posed by virus-resistant transgenic plants was discussed at several meetings of the SCARM GAP Working Group. CSIRO officers took part in the discussions.(a) Dr Gary Fitt and Dr T J Higgins.(b) on 10 June, 24 July, 4 September and 13 November 1997.(c) Views presented are not attributable to individual members of the Working Group.(d) Refer to the members listed in answers given to questions (1) and (2).(16) The SCARM Working Group to Prepare `Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines for Genetically Modified Crops and Pastures' decided to seek the views of a member of staff from the Cooperative Research Centre for Plant Science on the possible risks of using virus-resistant transgenic plants.At the SCARM GAP Working Group meeting of 24 July 1997, Dr T J Higgins agreed to report on transcapsidation, sap-sucking insects and seed movement and other matters involving virus-resistant transgenic plants before next meeting. There was some discussion about the possibility of asking Dr Mark Gibbs to provide input on the risks relating to recombination and transcapsidation for farming systems, including the generation of new virus types with increased host range or virulence. No records indicate further discussions with Dr Gibbs.This issue was discussed at PIC 28, in October 1997. A recommendation was made by the Workshop on the Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops and Pastures that the CRC for Plant Science prepare a concise `out-of-session issue paper for PIC on the issue of Risk Assessment of Viral Recombination in Transgenic Crops. Informal discussions were held with Dr Mark Gibbs from the CRC for Plant Science, about the possibility of Dr Gibbs producing a background paper on this topic. Dr Gibbs, at the time of writing, has not yet provided PIC with a formal proposal to write this paper and no views have yet been received by either committee from this CRC.Sources: This information has been developed from the 1997 Minutes of the Plant Industries Committee and the SCARM Working Group to Prepare `Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines for Genetically Modified Crops and Pastures'.5631(Question No. 2929)29295631Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.5631Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Nil.(b) Nil.(c) Nil.5631(Question No. 2938)29385631Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.5631Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) In 1996-97 under the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) scheme the following grants were allocated for one year: (i) $43,901 was awarded to the Lao Association of Queensland Inc to provide services to Lao youth and elderly, advise on health needs and organise cross-cultural awareness activities. Only $1,683 was paid as the Association relinquished the grant in October 1996; and (ii) $47,596 was awarded to the West Moreton Migrant Resource Service Inc to provide community education to community groups and develop community support structures. Because the worker position was vacant for a significant period, only $34,131 of the grant was paid.(b) In 1997-98 under the Community Settlement Services (CSS) Scheme, which incorporated the former GIA and the Migrant Access Projects Scheme (MAPS), the following grants were allocated for one year: (i) $50,000 to the Ipswich City Council to produce an action plan for migrant settlement services and coordination of migrant services in the Ipswich area; and (ii) $367,500 to the consortium of four agencies for the Logan/Beenleigh—Inala/Ipswich regional strategy funding model. The four agencies are located in the federal electorate of Rankin, but the workers from two of the participating agencies, the Inala Community House and the South West Economic Development Network provide services in the Oxley electorate weekly.(c) I plan to announce the organisations that will receive CSS Scheme funding in 1998-99 by August 1998.5631(Question No. 2959)29595631Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) Will he provide a copy of the report of the drugs task force involved with the development of the `Tough on drugs' package and chaired by the Secretary of his Department; if not, why not.(2) What (a) persons, (b) agencies and (c) governments were consulted by the task force in preparing the report and what form of consultation was involved in each case.(3) How were the persons, agencies and governments referred to in part (2) chosen.(4) If no consultation occurred, on what information and expertise was the report prepared.(5) How many times did the task force meet in preparing the report and who attended each meeting.(6) Were (a) State and Territory premiers, chief ministers or health ministers or (b) the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy consulted specifically about the `Tough on drugs' package; if not, why not; if so, (i) when and (ii) by whom.(7) What (a) outcomes measures have been established for the three components of the `Tough on drugs' package, (b) performance indicators have been developed to assess whether the outcomes have been achieved and (c) mechanisms have been implemented to monitor the achievement of the outcomes using the performance indicators.(8) Have funds been allocated to treatment agencies under the `Tough on drugs' package; if so, (a) in each case (i) what sum, (ii) to whom and (iii) for what purpose, (b) which agencies applied for funding unsuccessfully and on what basis was funding refused in each case, (c) what process was used to distribute funds, (d) what criteria applied to the allocation of funds, (e) how were applications for funding assessed, (f) who assessed the applications, (g) were persons or bodies other than from the Department of Health and Family Services involved in the selection process; if so, (i) who and (ii) what were their qualifications, (h) will he provide a copy of the documentation provided to persons or agencies seeking funding for treatment services, (i) was the application process publicly announced; if so, (i) when and (ii) through which media; if not, why not, and (j) why were the funds not provided to the States and Territories through National Public Health Agreements.(9) Was funding provided to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia to assist in the implementation of the `Tough on drugs' package; if so, (a) what sum, (b) on what basis was it provided and (c) what activities was the Council to undertake.(10) What progress has been made with the Schools Drug Strategy.(11) Have funds been allocated under the Schools Drug Strategy; if so, (a) to whom, (b) for what activities and (c) what sum was provided in each case.(12) Has $4.8 million been provided for local drug prevention and education projects; if so, (a) who has received funding, (b) how were they chosen, (c) what sum was provided in each case, (d) were outcomes or performance indicators developed; if not, why not; if so, what are they, and (e) what progress has been made in each case.(13) Has $1.8 million been provided for a one-stop shop to disseminate information to the community; if so, what progress has been made.(14) Has an agency been chosen to operate the service referred to in part (13); if so, (a) who, (b) how were they chosen, (c) on what basis was funding provided, (d) what outcomes are to be achieved, (e) was the funding publicly announced; if not, why not, and (f) did other agencies apply to conduct the service; if so (i) who and (ii) why were they not chosen.(15) Have front line professionals been trained under the `Tough on drugs' package; if so, (a) what training did they receive, (b) who conducted the training, (c) to what professions do they belong, (d) what sums were they paid, (e) how were they selected, and (f) where are they located.(16) Has interdisciplinary research been undertaken or funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council about the prevention and treatment of drug abuse; if so, in each case, (a) what was the nature of the research, (b) to whom was funding provided, (c) on what basis was funding provided and (d) what product was delivered to the Council.(17) What funds have been provided to each State and Territory for the conduct of non-heroin trials.(18) What trials are being undertaken and when will the results be known.5632Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. The report was prepared as a Cabinet Memorandum and is covered by the conventions of Cabinet confidentiality.(2) The task force's activities did not involve a consultation process as its purpose was to enable relevant Commonwealth Government agencies to collate and assess the range of Commonwealth activities relating to illicit drugs. Its work was therefore based on expert advice from relevant Commonwealth agencies.(3) See the answer to part (2).(4) See the answers to parts (2) and (3).(5) The task force met twice. Members of the task force who attended the first meeting were:. Mr Moore-Wilton (Secretary, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) (Chairman);. Mr Flood (Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade);. Mr Podger (Secretary, Department of Health and Family Services);. Mr Skehill (Secretary, Attorney-General's Department);. Mr Broome (Chairman, National Crime Authority);. Mr Palmer (Commissioner, Australian Federal Police);. Mr Woodward (Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs Service);. Vice-Admiral Barrie (Vice-Chief of the Defence Force); and . Mr Early (Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance).The second meeting had the same attendance with the exception that Mr Reaburn (Acting Secretary, Attorney-General's Department) replaced Mr Skehill.(6) The tough on drugs package was developed and announced in two instalments; the first was announced on 2 November 1997 and the second on 16 March 1998. State and Territory Governments were not consulted during the development of the first phase because its focus was primarily on identifying areas for Commonwealth leadership in response to the health, social and economic costs of illicit drug use in Australia including matters primarily within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. After its announcement, the National Illicit Drug Strategy was discussed with Premiers and Chief Ministers at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 7 November 1997. At that meeting Heads of Government agreed to join a National Illicit Drug Strategy, founded on a partnership between governments and the broader community. On 28 November 1997, the Minister for Health and Family Services, the Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, wrote to Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS) ministers asking for advice on suitable appointees to the Australian National Council on Drugs and its draft terms of reference. On 23 December 1997, Dr Wooldridge wrote to MCDS ministers about the implementation of the first instalment and their input to the development of additional measures which could be considered for inclusion in the second instalment.(7) As part of the tough on drugs strategy, the terms of reference for the Australian National Council on Drugs require it to advise the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy on the implementation and evaluation of the National Illicit Drug Strategy. More broadly, a National Drug Strategic Framework 1998-2002 is being developed and is currently the subject of widespread community consultation. Once the National Drug Strategic Framework has been endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, performance indicators and mechanisms for monitoring these indicators will be developed for the whole of the National Drug Strategy, including the National Illicit Drug Strategy. In anticipation of this, evaluation and, where appropriate, data collection is being built into the individual components of the National Illicit Drug Strategy.(8) (a) No.(b)—(g) See the answer to (a).(h) I understand a copy of the documentation provided to persons or agencies seeking funding for treatment services has been provided to the honour able member by the Department of Health and Family Services.(i) Yes; advertisements appeared in major metropolitan newspapers and the indigenous press in the week beginning 30 May 1998.(j) The National Illicit Drug Strategy shows Commonwealth leadership to address illicit drug problems. This leadership is consistent with the approach called for by the 1997 evaluation of the National Drug Strategy.(9) No.(10) The development, implementation and progress of the Schools Drug Education Strategy will be informed by the National Advisory Committee on Schools Drug Education which was established on 22 April 1998 by the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, Senator the Hon Christopher Ellison. The Schools Drug Education Strategy is currently in draft form and is being considered by the National Advisory Committee.The National Advisory Committee will provide expert advice and direction on the Schools Drug Education Strategy to the Minister and through the Minister to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.The National Advisory Committee on Schools Drug Education will also report to the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy through the Inter-Governmental Committee on Drugs and the Australian National Council on Drugs.(11) No funds have been allocated under the Schools Drug Education Strategy. The funding of $7.5 million over three years begins in financial year 1998-99. However, to inform the development of the Strategy, the Curriculum Corporation conducted a project on behalf of the Commonwealth to provide a comprehensive data base of drug education materials currently being used in Australian primary and secondary schools and drug education policy materials. The project was funded from the Quality Outcomes Program of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs at a cost of $23,375.(12) While the Government has made provision for the community grants program, funds have not been allocated. Advertisements appeared in major metropolitan newspapers and the indigenous press in the week beginning 30 May 1998 seeking applications from agencies for funding local drug prevention and education projects.(13) While the Government has made provision for a national one stop shop, no funds have been allocated to an organisation to provide a one stop shop. Implementation of this initiative is currently being considered by the Australian National Council on Drugs. (14) See the answer to part (13).(15) While the Government has made provision for the training of front line professionals, no funds have been allocated for training under this provision.(16) The Government has funded three research projects under the National Illicit Drug Strategy.(a) The prediction of emotional and behavioural problems—infancy to adolescence;(b) University of Melbourne.(a) Investigation of cocaine induced changes in brain function;(b) Flinders University.(a) Parenting in the socio-cultural context of illicit drug or harmful alcohol use (A Research Training Fellowship);(b) Australian National University.(c) All three grants were provided on the basis of competitive applications under the 1997 NHMRC grant round funding for 1998. The total funding for these grants over four years is $735,000.(d) The research fellowship grant is for four years and the other two grants are for three year projects. Accordingly, results will not be available for some time.(17) A total of $58,170 under the National Drug Strategy was provided in 1996-97 towards a multi-site two year clinical trial of buprenorphine, which is being conducted in New South Wales and South Australia. Funds have not been allocated to States and Territories for the conduct of non-heroin trials under the National Illicit Drugs Strategy.(18) To the knowledge of the Department of Health and Family Services, the State trials which are currently under way include the pilot stage of a trial of naltrexone withdrawal in New South Wales, and a trial of buprenorphine maintenance in South Australia and New South Wales. Extensive data from the buprenorphine trial are expected in December 1998 with final results and analysis upon trial completion in March 2000.Several other jurisdictions have announced their intentions to undertake trials. As the Commonwealth is not involved in undertaking the trials, it is not known when results will be available.5634(Question No. 2983)29835634Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 14 May 1998:(1) Has the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) heard the submissions concerning the lockout of miners at the Gordonstone Mine in Central Queensland which is owned by Atlantic Richfield Oil Company (ARCO).(2) Did the Gordonstone management admit before the AIRC that the unionised workforce were good employees.(3) Did the AIRC (a) find that the terminations of employment had to do with the capacity and conduct of senior management, not that of employees, and, more specifically, an intent on the part of senior management to avoid its statutory obligations and (b) conclude that the dismissals were harsh, unjust and unreasonable.(4) Will he urge ARCO to (a) behave decently towards its employees wherever it operates in Australia; and (b) respect the traditions of unionism which exist in Australia.5634Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There was no lockout of miners at the Gordonstone coal mine. Gordonstone Coal Management Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of ARCO Coal Australia Inc, retrenched all of its 312 production and engineering employees on 1 October 1997 and placed the mine on an indefinite care and maintenance program.As a consequence of the retrenchments, the CFMEU made applications on behalf of 282 of the former employees under s170CE(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the act), claiming unfair termination of employment. In order to expedite proceedings, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) decided to arbitrate seven representative cases.(2) In his decision of 2 February 1998 on the representative cases, Hingley C stated that he was satisfied that, from the submissions of the company, the "workforce were at all times generally good employees whose individual personal work records were not taken into account in the decision to terminate the entire [production & engineering] workforce".At the time of the retrenchments, mine management said that it had continually tried to implement change to meet the mine owner's requirement for improved performance in safety, productivity and costs. Gordonstone indicated that it had been unable to achieve the necessary rate of improvement given the structures, systems, behaviours and work organisation that existed at the mine.(3) (a) and (b) Hingley C found that "each of the seven representative terminations were harsh, unjust and unreasonable". In his reasons for the decision, the Commissioner makes the statement: "I am of the view that the terminations of employment had to do with the capacity and conduct of senior management not that of the employees, and more specifically, an intent on the part of senior management to avoid its statutory obligations".(4) (a) and (b) The Government expects all employers, employees, and unions to fully comply with the relevant laws, including the Workplace Relations Act 1996. In an industry such as coal mining, regardless of its traditions, it urges employers and employees to work cooperatively to improve competitiveness and efficiency in their own interests and in the national interest.5635(Question No. 2993)29935635McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 25 May 1998:What fire protection clothing is provided to sailors in the RAN and in what circumstances is it required to be worn.5635Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:When onboard a ship officers and sailors in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) are provided with the following protective clothing, which is worn over normal cotton underwear; combat coveralls (proban treated), anti flash hood and gloves (proban treated), safety boots, and fearnought suits.The RAN has three levels of clothing and equipment for dealing with fires. These are as follows:Basic firefighting dress— This consists of combat coveralls, anti flash hood, gloves and safety boots. This dress is worn to conduct initial firefighting using portable (hand held) extinguishers. Duty personnel who are required to respond to a fire alarm will wear the coveralls and safety boots and carry the hood and gloves.Intermediate firefighting dress—This consists of the basic firefighting dress with the addition of breathing apparatus. Personnel in this dress will be used to carry out second level firefighting using portable extinguishers in the presence of smoke or toxic fumes.Full firefighting dress—This consists of the basic firefighting dress with the addition of a fearnought suit (constructed of woollen fire retardant material) and breathing apparatus. This dress is used by personnel with fire hoses to conduct major firefighting.In addition, firefighters at the Naval Air Station, Nowra wear protective clothing to the same standard as firefighters at civil airports. 5635(Question No. 3014)30145635Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 27 May 1998:(1) Is it a fact that Vodafone is maintaining its analogue service in the UK.(2) Could Vodafone compete with an analogue service in Australia; if not, why not.(3) Is it a fact that neither Vodafone nor Optus have bought an allocation of the spectrum in regional Australia; if so, what are the implications for rural Australia.5635Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Vodafone (Australia) advises that Vodafone (UK and Cellnet) opened its analogue services in the UK in 1985. Vodafone subsequently introduced GSM and has been gradually closing down the UK analogue network over the last few years to re-deploy the radio channels to GSM use.Vodafone advises that it has invested significant sums in the UK in the management of this migration both in capital investment and in enabling the customers to upgrade their equipment from analogue service to GSM.Vodafone reports that its analogue customer base has declined as a result of this gradual migration and closure program from a peak of some 2 million in 1995 to approximately 750 thousand today, and that Cellnet's profile is similar.Vodafone advises that the analogue networks in the UK will be completely closed by 2005.(2) Within the terms of its Public Telecommunications Mobile Licence Service (PMTS) under both the Telecommunications Act 1991 (the 1991 Act) and the Telecommunications Act 1997 (the 1997 Act), Vodafone advises that it could resell the analogue service provided by Telstra through to 31 December 1999, when the service is to be phased out (subject to limited exemptions).Vodafone has said that, on the basis of this undertaking by the Government, Vodafone has invested over $1 billion in digital GSM infrastructure in Australia, since its licence was awarded in December 1992. It has been unable to justify any additional expenditure to provide connection and billing services so it can resell the Telstra analogue service in competition with it's own GSM digital network.(3) Vodafone advises that at the auction of spectrum in the 800 and 1800 Mhz bands in late May 1998, it purchased additional spectrum in the 1800 Mhz band in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth Canberra, Tasmania and Darwin.Vodafone advises that it previously acquired 5 Mhz of spectrum in the 900 Mhz band Australia wide through its PMTS licence in 1992, and subsequently, with Telstra and Optus, was allocated another 3.3 Mhz making a total of 8.3 Mhz of paired spectrum in the 900 Mhz band.Vodafone advises that the spectrum acquired is more than enough capacity to satisfy all Vodafone mobile telephony capacity requirements in rural Australia for the foreseeable future.Optus advises that it purchased spectrum in the 1.8 Ghz band in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth primarily to address anticipated future congestion in these cities.Optus advises that it did not purchase additional spectrum in rural areas because its current spectrum allocation (900 Mhz) in these areas is more than sufficient to cater for the expected demand. Optus believes that its decision regarding the auction has no implications for rural Australia.Optus advises that over 91% of the Australian population currently has access to Optus' mobile digital services. Optus' plans to increase its coverage are very aggressive with 500 base stations planned for 1997/98 and 650 planned for 1998/99. Rural Australia will also receive a significant increase in mobile coverage with more than 100 new rural sites planned for 1998/99.5636(Question No. 3022)30225636Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 1 June 1998:(1) How many newsroom journalists were employed in the ABC Radio 2CN newsroom in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(2) How many locally produced news bulletins were broadcast on ABC Radio 2CN on a normal weekday in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.5636Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Number of StaffNumber of Bulletins(a) 1993/94818(b) 1994/95820(c) 1995/96820(d) 1996/97820(e) 1997/987 (1 position frozen)20The number of bulletins does not include half hourly headlines which commenced in 1996.5636(Question No. 3043)30435636Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1998:Has his advice been drawn to advice from Dr Vince Fitzgerald in his report entitled The potential impact on retirement and savings that the Government, (a) not see Labor's growing pool of more than $350 billion of superannuation savings as asource of additional tax revenue and (b) leave superannuation alone in its forthcoming tax package; if so, will the Government follow the advice.5636Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government is aware of the issues raised in the discussion paper. The Government is taking a wide range of matters into account in framing its tax reform package.