1998-06-303817REPS563701998-06-30Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice563756375637Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House yesterday that in relation to One Nation preferences, `You pay on the results and the results so far are very good.' Prime Minister, does your idea of very good results include the election of 11 One Nation MPs in Queensland, the elimination of the Liberal Party as an official party in the Queensland parliament and its replacement by One Nation, the resignation from the Liberal Party of Australia's first Chinese-born parliamentarian and the allowing of `unsavoury elements that have always existed back into the political game through One Nation', according to the Treasurer. If this is your idea of a very good result, could you tell us what a bad result would look like?5637Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have nothing to add to what I had previous said about decisions made in relation to preferences.56375637Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the latest trade figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? How do they compare with the expectations?5637Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his question. The international trade in goods and services for May 1998 released this morning were certainly far better than median market expectations. The median market expectations were for a deficit of $700 million. The deficit in fact was broadly unchanged in May at $526 million compared with a revised April result of $525 million. The data provides evidence that, while exports to Asia are down, Australian exporters are diversifying into other markets. Much has been made of the fall in exports in the March quarter and their contribution to the current account for that quarter. The fall in the March quarter was actually a little less than expected and, as I said at the time, was a result of some one-off factors, particularly a delay in cereal exports. Even so, the rise in the current account deficit came as no surprise for the reasons which were outlined in the budget.As was said in the budget, a widening in the current account is to be expected in 1998 as a consequence of developments in Asia. A substantial part of the contraction in our direct export markets has likely already occurred and exporters will over time have more opportunities for diversification. I have emphasised on a number of occasions that, whilst the budget forecast is 5¼ per cent on average over 1998-99, it would be fully consistent for a particular quarter to have higher than that in terms of current account, perhaps even up to six per cent.The good news out of today's figures is that these figures show that there is substantial diversification going on amongst Australian exporters. Australian exporters unquestionably have been hit hard by the downturn in Asia, which is as serious as we have ever seen in our lifetimes. But the good news is that with the inventiveness of exporters, with a competitive economy, with low inflation and with good interest rates, the domestic conditions are in place to help Australian business and, in fact, to help Australian living standards.56375637Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the foreign minister in Bangkok earlier this month trumpeted the Prime Minister's action during the 1996 federal election to disendorse the member for Oxley as a Liberal candidate. Does this not show that Liberal Party decisions can be influenced decisively through the wielding of political authority by the leader? Prime Minister, does this not demonstrate that your rationale for not acting, namely that your hands are tied because the party machine is supreme, is just an excuse for doing nothing? Why don't you wield your authority and insist that the remaining Liberal divisions, as well as the National Party, put One Nation last.5638Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—For the fifth day in a row the Leader of the Opposition neglects the real concerns of the Australian people, namely the strength of the Australian economy and the job prosects of young Australians. It speaks volumes about his nitpicking and political priorities.Distinguished Visitors563810000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I welcome Senator Michai Viravaidya from Thailand, who is in the audience. We are delighted to see him. Welcome to Australia.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice563856385638Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. How successful is this government's strategy to encourage the diversification of Australia's trade and export effort? What benefits does this bring to rural and regional Australia?5638Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Murray for her question. I also join in welcoming Senator Michai to the chamber and reflect on the fact that Australian-Thailand relations have developed very greatly over the last couple of decades and more so in the last few years, and have seen a good boost of two-way trade investment and tourism between our two countries. The take-out of the figures just referred to by the Treasurer include another dimension. I reveal to the House that the exports of goods and services in the 11 months to the end of May-1 June 1998 were up 10.3 per cent compared with the same period last year. In other words, our exporters, against the odds, have now reached $104.5 billion of exports for this financial year, just about the same as for the entirety of last financial year, with one month's figures to come. That is an outstanding achievement by our exporters and that means more jobs here in Australia.I also refer to the fact that imports in the same 11-month period have increased by 14.1 per cent to $107.8 billion, and they are perfectly manageable at that level. Some of those imports include products, some as small as wine corks, to facilitate the export of $700 million worth of bottled Australian wine to the world—that is the current figure for our excellent wine export effort to the world—right through to other intermediate goods, computer goods and the like.The government's strategy over the last 28 months of encouraging exporters to diversify is not some abstract strategy. It is working and it is working well. It is mirrored by the export market development grant payments going out in full and it is also reflected by the extra energy in the bilateral trade negotiations. I add that Australian exporters, particularly in rural and regional Australia, are also to be congratulated. Today's figures show that exports of rural goods are up, including a 28 per cent increase in meat and meat preparation exports. That is a tremendous effort by hard-pressed primary industry exporters who are doing it against the odds.The Columbus line Australian management advises that right now, throughout this month of June, they have almost record bookings for outbound containers, most notably on the Australia-USA run. That also augers well for a very good set of figures for the month of June. We are doing it with pragmatic trade policy which recognises there is no such thing as a level playing field, but which helps our exporters win gold medals in performance, including this increase of 10 per cent plus for the first 11 months of this financial year. It is our exporters who have helped lay the base for a happier new financial year, which begins in a few hours time.56385638Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Do you agree with the Treasurer's view on One Nation that `even though it may not be to your tactical advantage, it is an issue where you stand on principle'? Do you agree with the view of your Senate colleagues Senators Boswell and O'Chee that the National Party should put One Nation last, or do you agree with the view of the Queensland National Party President, David Russell, that One Nation should be put ahead of Labor? Deputy Prime Minister, which will it be—a tactical advantage or principle?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. I will call the Deputy Prime Minister when the House restores order.5639Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—On Saturday I had a fairly comprehensive day—a working breakfast in Darwin with exporters, a flood recovery function in Katherine—Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Yes, and then went to Finley and Corowa in my electorate, consulting with a raft of people.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The same day?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Just one day.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition will remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—As a result of that consultation and continuing consultation—I will have more to say on the subject raised by the Leader of the Opposition down the track—I stand by exactly what was said by me on Radio National AM this morning. I also am very proud to record in Hansard the comments by the Albury bartender quoted on RN AM . In respect of the federal member for Farrer, he said—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Is he a party member?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—He was not. He was not prebriefed. We do not act like aNiMaLS. He came bolting through. If you were listening to AM this morning, you would hear that he really did come bolting through the radio waves. He said:He'll bolt it in, actually. He's a . . . he's firmly entrenched down here. I wouldn't think anyone else. I seen in the paper the other day where he—Tim Fischer—looks a little bit shaky, but I'd . . . jeez, I'd bet . . . nearly bet me life on it he'd get back in with a blood big swing, actually. He's very, very popular.And he went on. On this occasion I will back the bartender from Albury and I will have more to say on the matter down the track.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You will even shout him a drink. Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks will remain silent. When members of the government are silent, I will call the next question.56395639Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. What guarantees can the minister give that Telstra will not become fully foreign owned?5639Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I can give an absolute guarantee to the honourable member for Dawson that Telstra will not become foreign owned.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will be silent. I warn the member for Burke and the member for Hotham.HQ5Mr FAHEY—The reason I can give that absolute guarantee is that the legislation before the Senate at the present time contains that absolute guarantee.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Isaacs.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—Is that `never ever'?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Corio.HQ5Mr FAHEY—It mirrors the legislation that was passed by the federal parliament that provides not more than 35 per cent of the shares in Telstra can be owned by foreign persons or their associates and not more than five per cent of those shares can be owned by an individual.That does not stop the Labor Party from continuing its fear campaign, the distortion of facts campaign. The Labor Party is in full swing, sending out brochures and telling anybody who wants to read them that, if Telstra is sold, then it will be foreign owned. I noted that the candidate in the Northern Territory has been peddling this line in a letter to people in the Northern Territory claiming that, if Telstra is sold, it will be foreign owned. Not true; that is another Labor lie. I noted that the material produced in Brisbane and circulated in Queensland before the Queensland state election—obviously designed with one object in mind; that is, to pander to the One Nation supporters—claimed that, if Telstra were privatised, there would be foreign ownership. I noted that Senator McKiernan has been circulating material in Western Australia indicating that, if Telstra is sold, only the big fund management companies will own Telstra. I can only presume he was referring to the trade union fund managers who have already acquired ownership in Telstra.It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition has put out a circular saying the same thing. It is ironic that the man who is beating his breast on this issue of foreign ownership was the minister responsible for the sale of Qantas. What was the percentage of foreign ownership for the sale of Qantas? What was that percentage of foreign ownership in Qantas? It was 49 per cent. The legislation that this government is passing will provide for no more than 35 per cent foreign ownership. Again, the Labor Party talk about only a small group of Australians owning shares in Telstra. I presume they are referring to people like Senator McKiernan and Senator Crowley who bought shares, along with 1½ million other Australians, when the first sale occurred.The guarantee goes further. Every day the trustee of the instalment receipts checks through, looks under the system that the Stock Exchange put in—the CHESS system—and informs the Stock Exchange what the level of ownership is. It ought to be noted that, despite the fact that 35 per cent was available in the first third of Telstra's sale, only between 19 and 21 per cent has been foreign owned to date. There is an entitlement to 35 per cent. Of course, there is a power, if foreign ownership exceeds 35 per cent, for the trustee and for Telstra in due course to force those shares to be sold immediately.I give an absolute guarantee, because the Australian parliament gives that guarantee, that foreign ownership will always be restricted to 35 per cent.56405640Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The leader of One Nation was supporting the privatisation of Telstra at the last election.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his question or resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling all working Australians before the last election that, under a Howard government, `You cannot be worse off'? Do you recall saying, `No worker in Australia under the Howard industrial relations system can have his or her award conditions taken away from him or her'? How do you reconcile these promises with the fact that, at the stroke of midnight tonight, millions of workers will lose vital award protections in areas such as occupational health and safety, like first aid facilities, sexual harassment, leave entitlements and guaranteed hours of work each week? Prime Minister, when you said that no Australian worker would be worse off, didn't you mean to say they would `never ever' be worse off? Isn't this another broken promise?5640Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is not. The award simplification that is coming into effect from midnight tonight is precisely as foreshadowed in our pre-election policy. Any suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that it represents a broken promise is a complete distortion of the fact.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—But they will be worse off!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane!ZD4Mr HOWARD—What is interesting is that the award simplification process which is coming into force at midnight tonight is very much in line with the speech given by the former Prime Minister Mr Keating when he addressed a meeting of company directors in Melbourne after the 1993 election. It is very much in line with that. The government has honoured, through the no-disadvantage test, the commitment it made in relation to the value of the award and Australian workplace agreements. The commitment that was made by me in January 1996 was that a worker going into an Australian workplace agreement would not be worse off compared with the provisions of the award. That was the no-disadvantage guarantee that was given by me. That guarantee has been honoured.In the policy that was released before the election, we foreshadowed the process of award simplification, and that process is being carried out in accordance with that commitment. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition is deliberately misleading the Australian people about the commitments I made on behalf of the coalition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—They just don't believe you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will be silent.56415641Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, from tomorrow all federal awards will be pared back to 20 allowable matters as part of the government's—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will be silent. The member for Stirling will recommence his question. If members of the House will be silent, we can all hear it.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—We have just had this question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Hunter.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Oh! Oh!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Batman at the same time.6V5Mr EOIN CAMERON—From tomorrow, all federal awards will be pared back to 20 allowable matters as part of the government's workplace reforms. What is the rationale for this change and what will be the benefits for both employees and employers from this process?QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I would have thought that that question has already been asked and fully answered.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member knows that the question is framed in a different form, and consequently the minister is perfectly at liberty to respond.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—And you are proud of them.5641Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The Leader of the Opposition interjects and says, `And you're proud of it.' Not only are we proud of it; in fact, these provisions of the Workplace Relations Act were signed off—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Notwithstanding what the Prime Minister said.WI4Mr REITH—Let me finish.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Okay; go on.WI4Mr REITH—They were signed off as being fair and reasonable and consistent with the government's policy by none other than a leading member of the frontbench of the Labor Party, Mrs Kernot. She publicly supported them as being consistent with our policy and as being a fair deal for workers—and why shouldn't she? What incredible hypocrisy. It was Paul Keating who said:Let me describe the model of industrial relations we are working towards.The Prime Minister referred to these words a moment ago:It is a model which places primary emphasis on bargaining at the workplace level within a framework of minimum standards provided by arbitral tribunals.This is what the Labor Party publicly advocated as being a good idea but could never deliver. That is the reality of it. You could never deliver this. We have seen part of the reason that that is the case, and that is that, even in the 18-month period that we gave to the trade union movement to cooperatively work to the simplification of awards, they dragged their feet. Why have they dragged their feet? They dragged their feet because they refused to be part and parcel of sensible reform. So we put in a timetable to make sure this actually happened. The Sydney Morning Herald article this morning says:That a mere handful of unions have bothered to treat award simplification seriously ahead of today's cut-off date says much about why the process was necessary in the first place.They are absolutely right. The fact is that this is one of the many things that should have been done, which you yourselves said should have been done, and yet you yourselves were unable to achieve it.This is the first time in the history of the arbitral system in Australia that we have finally drawn a line and said, `Enough is enough,' and, `Let us have a system where workers can actually have a say in the terms and conditions of their employment instead of those terms and conditions being inflexibly prescribed by arbitral tribunals.' This is an important occasion in the ongoing reform of Australia's industrial relations system—something the Labor Party could never achieve.56425642McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you explain to the member for Parramatta why schedule 3 of your Copyright Amendment Bill will destroy 2,000 jobs in his electorate alone? Will you also explain to the member for Robertson why 1,200 jobs will be slashed in his electorate? Or will you ask the member for Chisholm, Dr Wooldridge, whether the 1,000 jobs that will be lost as a result of the implementation of his policy is why he is deserting his constituents for a safer seat?VT4REIDMr Reid—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: this is not in fact a question. What he is doing is making a statement to the House, which is quite incorrect.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thought it might be hypothetical rather than a statement; I think it is getting very close. I will allow the honourable member to complete his question.5I4Mr McMULLAN—If you would you like to give me time to explain my hypothesis, I will be very pleased to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suspect that it would be a good idea if you completed your question.5I4Mr McMULLAN—Prime Minister, why is the government persisting with the job destroying schedule 3 to this bill?3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, a point of order!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I put it to you that your original analysis was correct. The member concluded his remarks with a request to you that you allow him to complete his hypothesis. Nothing could be more hypothetical. I ask you to rule him out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The final part of the question, as the honourable member for Parramatta would know, had the pith in the whole of the product and I would suggest that that was actually in order.5642Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—This is just chapter 2 in the question raised by the member for Canberra yesterday. The report on which the member for Canberra relies was something of a survey conducted by an accounting firm which wrote to a number of people who thought themselves threatened, or their businesses threatened, by schedule 3 of the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 . They asked them, `What would you expect your position to be, as regards turnover, sales, profit, employment and so on, in three years time, and what would it be if this bill was passed in the same time?' And, of course, they came back and they had terrible tales of woe to tell. They were going to lose all sorts of sales. They were going to lose all sorts of profits. They were going to have to sack people.The simple fact of the matter is that this bill is designed to benefit the community, to benefit consumers, and to introduce competition in an area where there is presently no competition. The reason there is no competition is not a valid one. What these exclusive distributors are saying is, `The goods we import from overseas have a label on them. That label is copyright. We do not care about what the product is—the label is the important thing. We do not want competition in respect of the label.' What nonsense is that? This is a bill that should be supported by the Labor Party as being in the interests of consumers.DT4CREANMr Crean—It will destroy jobs.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—How can it possibly destroy jobs when it is going to result in an increase in competition and the creation of more business?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members will remain silent. The Attorney will respond to the question and ignore all interruptions.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—This bill is beneficial. You are being sucked in by people who want to preserve something that they are not entitled to.56435643Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Could the minister advise the House of the details of a recent Australian Bureau of Statistics survey that revealed that Australia has recorded the lowest level of industrial disputes since 1940? Can this outcome be attributed to the application of the fair and progressive industrial relations policies of this government?5643Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for her question. The short answer is that much of it can be attributed to the passage of the Workplace Relations Act. If you go back, I think, just over a month, with the ABS figures then released, we had the lowest number of disputes per 1,000 employees since 1913. What an interesting contrast that makes to the claims made by the Labor Party before the last election. Remember Bill Kelty? He said, `If you vote for the coalition, you will get World War III.' On those figures, we did not get World War III. We got the lowest level of disputes since World War I. And, whilst the economy has grown, we had the lowest number of disputes since 1940, would you believe!Why is this? Part of the answer is the fact that we have very strong prohibitions now against secondary boycotts in the Trade Practices Act. We have strong bans against primary boycotts affecting international trade. If you look at the recent waterfront dispute, one of the remarkable aspects of that dispute is that we never actually had a national stoppage during it. We never had a national stoppage. And that is because of the effectiveness of the secondary boycott provisions of the Workplace Relations Act.To conclude, not only have we had record numbers but you can also draw this simple conclusion: if Labor were ever to be re-elected, and if they were to implement their policy, they would repeal the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act. So, for people who support the Labor Party, what they are supporting is an increase in the number of disputes in Australia, the jobs that that would cost, and the fall off in living standards that would result. These record low levels of industrial disputes are as a result of the good policies which we implemented—in particular, the `Cheryl clauses' which Labor are intent on repealing.56435643Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. Has the minister seen reports that, almost a year since the Goldsworthy report on the information industries was handed down, the government has done nothing to implement its recommendations? Has he also seen claims by electronics industry spokesman Alex Gosman that, `Government policy has made high-tech manufacturers more vulnerable to the Asian crisis, despite claims by the Treasurer that Australia was "fireproofed"'? Minister, when will you be acting on the Goldsworthy recommendations? In light of Ericsson's threatened shutdown, what will you be doing to stop the export of another 200-plus Australian jobs?5643Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—That is the second question from the member for Hotham on industry policy since November last year.DT4CREANMr Crean—Well, give us the first answer!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham!EI4Mr MOORE—That is the second question since November last year. Since the government announced its industry policy in December of that year, there has been very extensive action taken in relation to it. I am surprised at some of the comments that have been made because, in the area of information technology, for example, the government has moved to establish a ministerial council, chaired by Senator Alston, which is responsible for the implementation of a whole of government information online services strategy. Secondly, the National Office for Information Economy, which has responsibility for the development, coordination and overview of policies, has also been established under Senator Alston.In relation to the industry department's response to it, we have announced that as of tomorrow—that is, 1 July—the information industry's action agenda will go into effect. Some $28 million was announced—and this was announced some time ago; don't worry about that one—to establish a national network of software engineering quality centres and a new testing and performance infrastructure. So we are very much on the go in relation to responses to those areas.In relation to Ericsson—and the member raises this question—I have here a press release, released at lunchtime, from the managing director which contradicts completely what the member for Hotham was saying. It says:Ericsson Australia said today that it had no intention of withdrawing operations from Australia.None at all. It continues:Australia has been identified as a host of key Ericsson regional centres such as the Regional Supply Centre, Training and Education Centre, Service Centre, Competence Centre and the Global Design Centre among others. With these initiatives in place, Ericsson Australia will continue to build on the high level of competencies available in Australia, strengthening its presence and outlook.All of that stuff completely adds up to nothing.56445644Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs please inform the House of the purpose of his forthcoming visit to Indonesia?5644Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Aston for his question, and recognise the honourable member's particular interest in important issues such as Australia's relationship with Indonesia. As the honourable member suggests in his question, I will be visiting Indonesia from 8 to 10 July. This will be the first visit to Indonesia by a federal government minister since the installation of the Habibie administration in May of this year.During this visit I want to convey several key messages from the Australian government, and they are essentially, of course, going to be messages of support for Indonesia at this difficult time. Australia is an all-weather friend to Indonesia and its people, and we will remain a friend of Indonesia for the long haul. We will work with the Indonesian government and we will encourage it to implement not only economic reform but also political reforms which that government is focusing very much on. While I am there, I plan to meet with President Habibie and Foreign Minister Alatas as well as a number of ministers and key community leaders such as Megawati and Amien Rais. It will be an opportunity for me to not only convey some positive messages from Australia but also make my own assessment of the political and economic environment in Indonesia today.While I am in Indonesia, I will also be discussing the issue of East Timor. From Australia's perspective, we very much hope that the constructive discussions that have taken place between President Habibie and Bishop Belo will be the forerunner of further dialogue so that the very tense and difficult environment in East Timor can not only be addressed but become an environment of much greater security and much more comfort than is currently the case. Australia has a very important interest in the situation in East Timor—it being adjacent to Australia and given the history of this issue—and it is important that we engage in discussions with the Indonesian government on that issue, and I shall certainly be doing that during my visit.56445644Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—My question is to the member for Lowe. I refer the honourable member to his Sydney Airports Bill 1998 , which appears in today's Notice Paper at page 10029. In the light of recent announcements by the government, would the honourable member indicate why it is necessary for his bill to be given priority for debating and passing by this House?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—In calling the honourable member for Lowe, I would point out to him the very tight restraints on the reply that can be given by any private member in response to a question from another. Having those in mind, I call the honourable member for Lowe.5644Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I would like to thank the honourable member for Moore for his question. He no doubt has been sensing my frustration in bringing forward my private member's bill, which was put forward by me on 6 April 1998.There are few issues before this parliament, I would suggest, as important as an issue that affects more than one million people in Sydney because of aircraft noise and the emissions from those aircraft. I would suggest to anyone who has an electorate that has planes flying over it that this issue is equally important to them. Especially as the use of airports around Australia increases, the issue of noise and the issue of emissions from these aircraft are very serious issues.This matter has been brought to a head because on 25 June, in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Prime Minister himself admitted for the first time, according to reporter Robert Wainwright, that his government cannot meet its aircraft noise sharing promises—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member needs to address the timing and not go into reciting what others are saying or doing about the issue.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker, with due respect, this is extremely important because this occurred only a few days ago, with the Prime Minister for the first time publicly admitting that the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport was a sham. In fact, I have been saying that for more than two years. Let me just say that the targets that were promulgated by the minister—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are now talking about the detail of the bill. You can talk about the reason for its urgency; you cannot talk about its content.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker, this is why my bill should be brought forward urgently. We now have evidence—if ever we needed evidence—that the emissions from these aircraft at the very least can cause respiratory tract infections and death. Admittedly, on top of that, we have sufficient evidence that the emissions from these aircraft are cancer producing. I raise—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest that you are moving away from the question and the realms that are applied to you.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker, I am not doing that.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No, no! Give him a go!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the opposition will remain silent. The honourable member is making assertions about the substance, I presume, of his bill. I point out that you can only respond with respect to the reasons for urgency and not rely on hypothetical statements.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—I am not relying at all on hypothetical statements because I have quoted in this parliament before from the report printed in the British Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , which found that children born near airports—9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On four occasions you have asked the member to return to the substance of the question about which he is allowed to answer, which is about the timing of the bill, and he just continues in his answer as though you have said nothing. I would ask you to sit him down, if he will not follow the strictures of the chair.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, to that point of order: the member is obviously trying to establish urgency going to the health of the people in Sydney affected by this. He has a number of reports related to it. He is not able to get his bill on because the government controls the agenda, and he now is presenting why it is urgent. I think it is perfectly legitimate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition and other members should be aware, if they are not already, that there are very tight constraints applied to the asking of a question of another member. This matter is on the Notice Paper , as the questioner has suggested. But under 143 of our standing orders, there is a very narrow ambit within which the honourable member can respond. He is running very close to exceeding that at the moment. I will allow him to conclude his reply, but I would suggest that he remain very pertinent to the timing of the introduction of this bill.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—Throw him out. Traitor.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—John, he speaks very well of you too.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker, in regard to the timing, I would like this parliament to know that I have done everything I possibly can to bring this bill on. I think it is very important that every member of this parliament know what is available to a member of parliament to ensure that that member of parliament can bring forward his bill.I then wrote to the minister in charge of the business of this House, I wrote to the minister Peter Reith. I said to him, `When is my bill coming on?' This is what he said to me in his letter of 15 June:Dear Paul,It is not the prerogative of the government to determine when private members bills are scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives, rather it is the responsibility of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Selection.That is fine. Mr Speaker, I then approached the—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will conclude his reply.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—chairman of the Selection Committee.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will conclude his reply.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Give him a go.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am. I have already given him longer than most ministers spend in responding to questions.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member of the opposition would remain silent, we could all hear him. The honourable member will conclude his reply.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker, I would like your guidance on this, because this is very, very important to me and my electorate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am giving you guidance: you will conclude your reply.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker, I want to conclude with what has been said by the Selection Committee chairman, the Deputy Speaker of the House, in a letter in which he says:Dear Paul,You should know that it is a very rare occurrence for the Selection Committee to agree to a second reading for private members bills.So here we have the Leader of the House saying, `It's not my business, it's the Selection Committee's,' and the Selection Committee chairman writes to me and says, `It's not my business, it's somebody else's business.' So what do I then do, Mr Speaker? I raise the matter with you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. You have already taken longer than any other minister in your response.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Why won't you let him go on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Burke will remain silent. The honourable member for Lowe has very tight constraints. I will allow him another very brief period. But I point out to you that you have already taken five minutes 37 seconds in actual time in responding, and that is longer than any minister. The honourable member for Lowe will conclude his response.ZK6Mr ZAMMIT—Mr Speaker—who called me a traitor?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will conclude his reply. The honourable member for Lowe will resume his seat.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Somebody across there, perhaps the Minister for Health, has used language that I think is not parliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not hear the response.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—I heard it, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will resume his seat. Did the Minister for Health and Family Services use the words asserted? The minister denies that he used those words.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will resume his seat, and the House will come to order. If there was a remark made to which the honourable member for Lowe has taken offence, I ask whoever made the remark to acknowledge it and withdraw it. Otherwise, I have no choice: the honourable member for Lowe will resume his seat. You have concluded your answer.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If I could be of assistance to the House, the remark was overheard, it was by the Minister for Finance and Administration and it ought be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Did the minister for finance make the remark asserted? If so, I ask that he withdraw the remark.HQ5FAHEYMr Fahey—I withdraw.56475647Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. During my recent market day stall in Main Street, Mornington, self-funded retirees referred to the little attention given to their interests in the public debate about tax reform. Minister, can you assure me and the many self-funded retirees in the Dunkley electorate that their circumstances will be given special consideration in the government's tax reform package?5647Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question and assure the constituents of Dunkley that their member has taken his case directly to me and to the other levels of the government to ensure that the self-funded retirees and superannuants that he represents in Dunkley are given top of the list consideration in relation to tax reform. When he came to see me about this problem, I pointed out that this government has shown a very strong commitment to the self-funded retiree. This was the first government to exempt the pensioner tax rebate to self-funded retirees. This was the government which cut Labor's provisional tax uplift factor of eight per cent down to five per cent. This was the government that gave the gold card to veterans. This was the government that extended the Commonwealth seniors health card to another 220,000 self-funded retirees.I can assure the self-funded retirees and the aged community of Australia that, in relation to taxes and the consideration in tax, they are at the top of the list. They are the people that the government intends to make sure get a square deal out of tax reform in this country. They are the people who are being penalised by the taxation regime as it currently operates. They are the people who throughout the course of their lives have saved for their own retirement, and they are the people who deserve special consideration. I can assure the member for Dunkley that they will get it and that they will be winners under the government's tax reform program.56475647Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer, and it follows the answer that he has just given. I refer to the reports on the weekend that the government proposes to compensate lower income self-funded retirees for the impact of a GST upon them with a one-off compensation payment of around $2,000. I ask him: what is the point of a one-off compensation payment which, if it were applied directly to cover GST price increases, would run out in a year or two whereas a GST will go on forever? Or are you saying on the assumption that the $2,000 would be invested that the additional income of around $100 a year generated by this would be enough to compensate these retirees for the thousand dollars a year or more that the GST will cost them?5647Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I would have thought it would be obvious to anybody, including even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that recurrent sums have a net capital value. I would have thought that would be absolutely obvious. You will probably even find in your textbooks called `Garynomics made easy' a capital sum, and it happens in relation to superannuation or any other area. But do not take from that that the reports on the weekend were correct.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The Treasurer is ignoring the second part of my question, which was, if it is treated as a capital sum, if it generates $100 a year, how on earth is that going to be enough to cover the recurrent costs?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader will resume his seat. He does not have the call.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We welcome all parts of the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Let me go on to say this—because I think it is important that the self-funded retirement community of Australia understand this—somebody who is living on savings is penalised by high inflation. When inflation under Labor was running at 10 per cent in this country in the eighties, that meant that the value of self-funded retirees—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We inherited 11 per cent from him!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I always know when he is burned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent, and the Treasurer will respond through the chair and not to interjections.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, what it means is that, if inflation is high, and let us say it is 10 per cent, your savings are being undermined.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Which is what John Howard had.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will remain silent.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Right throughout the period of the 1980s when inflation under Labor was high, the capital value of savings was deteriorating. If inflation was at eight per cent, a self-funded retiree was losing eight per cent of the capital value of their savings every year, and over five years this could compound into a 40 per cent reduction in savings.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The point in issue is whether the wealth compensation you are proposing of $2,000 is enough or whether it is just a cosmetic sham and manifestly incapable of covering the recurring costs that you are going to impose upon them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader will not argue the point. The deputy leader will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The final point which can be very quickly finished is this: during that period when self-funded retirees' savings capital value was being eaten away by inflation, what compensation did Labor ever offer them? What compensation did Labor ever offer them? What compensation did Labor offer them for increasing wholesales sales tax? What compensation for increasing petrol excise? What compensation for taking away income tax? This was a party which gave no compensation to the aged in this country, which let them down badly, and it is one of the reasons why our government has treated them so well.56485648Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for the Status of Women. What action has the government taken to provide greater access to superannuation for Australian women so that they may better provide for their retirement in the future?5648Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—The one thing our government has recognised is that many women in the community are unable to provide for themselves in their retirement by way of superannuation because of the broken nature of their work pattern and their responsibilities caring for their families. So the Howard government has introduced a range of practical reforms to improve the income security of women in retirement, and those measures address a number of problem areas. They include an 18 per cent tax rebate for spouses who contribute up to $3,000 per annum to the superannuation fund of a low income partner. We have also introduced retirement savings accounts. These assist those people who are seasonal workers who often have a number of different super accounts, and they are now able to consolidate these accounts and reduce the impact of fees and charges on their accumulated savings.We have also extended the age when a person may contribute to superannuation from 65 to 70 years, and this does help women, in particular, to catch up with their contributions. For many women, full-time entry into the paid work force is often delayed until after their child rearing years are over, which means that they are unable to accumulate like others in the community who have an unbroken time in the work force.The government has also foreshadowed major changes to the treatment of superannuation and divorce, and has put out a position paper on this matter. This is an issue that Labor, when they were in government, were unable to address; they put it in the too-hard basket for over 10 years. We have taken a step to ensure, in that position paper, that we address the issue of the equitable division of superannuation on the dissolution of a marriage—that the family courts have clear guidelines as to the valuation of superannuation savings when a marriage comes to an end and that all parties, importantly, have access to all of the information they require in order to make a decision about the division of assets. It gives couples greater flexibility in determining how assets, including superannuation, are split at the time of the breakdown of a marriage. The Howard government has legislated and will continue to legislate for real and practical changes that will greatly benefit many thousands of Australian women.56495649Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games. Has the minister seen the statement by the Australian Hotels Association in New South Wales calling on the government to urgently reassess the new employment services system, which the association describes as `unfair and difficult, making it difficult for hoteliers to access staff' and placing `a new and unwarranted financial burden on them'? What response has the minister given?5649Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I have not seen the AHA statement. I have not had a chance to reply, but, in due course, I will.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the statement calling for change to the new jobs scheme by the Australian Hotels Association in New South Wales.Leave not granted.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I seek leave.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have already asked; it has been refused.56495649Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The minister will be aware of the long distances required to be travelled by many veterans in my electorate of Mallee for their health care access. It is a long way from Melbourne to places like Mildura, Robinvale and Edenhope. What is the government doing to assist with the cost of this travel and to ensure that veterans in my electorate have adequate support during their travels for health care services?5649Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I thank the member for Mallee for his question. He is a very effective member for the veteran community in his electorate. In fact, he has many towns in his electorate that go back in history to the early soldier settlement days—some very successful settlements indeed, including Robinvale, which has a very important sister relationship with a town on the western front in France which this weekend will have a very special focus. That town is Villers-Bretonneux.Many members of the parliament, I am sure, are aware that, this weekend, Australia will commemorate its involvement in the First World War. In fact, four veterans of the First World War will shortly be arriving in London—they left Australia yesterday—and, at Villers-Bretonneux war cemetery and at the national memorial, they will receive the Legion of Honour from the French government. They will be the first Allied veterans in the world to receive that very high award from the French government. I know that all Australians will see that as a great gesture by the French government.But I come back to the point of the member's question. I am well aware that there are excellent health services available in the electorate of Mallee, but, quite often, veterans have to travel long distances to access health services that are not available out there in Mallee. As I outlined in my ministerial statement to the House last week, the implementation of this policy has made it a lot easier for many veterans in rural Australia to not only access better health care but also get the support of the federal government.I want to outline some of those key points in relation to assisting veterans from remote and rural Australia to gain access to better health care if they have to travel. Firstly, by combining the accommodation rates and meal payments, we have been able to make one allowance. That has meant the veterans now receive around a 20 per cent increase in their daily rate. We also now pay a mileage allowance for veterans who travel on public transport for treatment. In addition to that, we also pay allowances for those who use their own transport, and we have increased the mileage rates by 6.6 per cent.We have also introduced payments for stays in private accommodation. In the past, many veterans have stayed with relatives or in private accommodation and have not been assisted; we now meet that commitment. We have also introduced a new allowance to cover the attendance of someone who has to travel with a veteran, like a carer or perhaps a family member. We also reimburse some parking costs associated with health treatment.The allowance to cover carers travelling with a veteran is particularly important because quite often it is traumatic for a veteran to have to leave home where they have the support of relatives or friends, and assisting that carer to travel with them certainly assists those veterans to make that transition from their home to where they receive treatment.I commend the progress report on the implementation of the health policy for the veteran community in rural and remote areas to members of the parliament; it is a way in which we are making sure that we target our assistance to our veterans who live outside metropolitan Australia. I thank the member for Mallee for his question.56505650Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that a 10 per cent GST would add $300 to the cost of a wheelchair, $200 to the cost of prosthetic limbs, and $100 to the cost of modifying a car—items which are all currently exempt from sales tax? Isn't the Physical Disability Council of New South Wales right when it says:People with physical disabilities will lose out in a GST because it will increase taxes on goods and services which are now untaxed.Prime Minister, how do you justify a tax which makes it harder for people with disabilities to do the things that other Australians take for granted—like walking, eating and driving a car?5650Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I say in reply to the honourable member for Namadgi that deliberately trying to scare disabled people in that scurrilous fashion do you and your party no credit at all.56505650Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. What steps has the government taken to ensure that foreign corporations pay tax in Australia? Furthermore, does the development of foreign tax havens pose a challenge to the Australian taxation system?5650Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The government has been very active in ensuring that foreign corporations pay Australian tax. We have introduced thin capitalisation rules to ensure that foreign corporations are not able to take advantage of excessive deductions in Australia. We have introduced new foreign investment fund rules to do the same thing and we have been active in relation to transfer pricing.Australian residents who derive income from businesses or personal exertion in Australia would normally be expected to pay Australian tax and the money would come through the Australian system. So I was rather surprised to see that one of the co-owners of One Nation Ltd, Mr David Ettridge, who was apparently paid $150,000 according to the Sydney Morning Herald, was receiving payments through a company which was incorpo rated in Port Vila, a company called Global Communications Ltd.Just to give a bit of background to this, Mr Ettridge was prosecuted by the Australian Taxation Office for unpaid taxes in August 1992. In September of 1993 a company called Global Communications Ltd was incorporated in the republic of Vanuatu. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, on 13 September 1997 World Vision paid $150,000 to this company, not in Port Vila but in Sydney. According to the Sydney Morning Herald the company Global Communications is not required to pay income tax or exchange duties in Vanuatu.When another of the co-owners of One Nation Ltd, David Oldfield, was asked about this on television on Sunday he said that Mr Ettridge had been employed in Vanuatu. He said:He works for somebody in Vanuatu. He is employed by them at that end. That is how the fundraising business that he was involved in where he was working for World Vision.That is certainly not World Vision's account. According to World Vision, the business was in Australia and the money was paid in Australia, not in Vanuatu, which is a foreign tax haven.I raise these issues for this reason: the public is owed an explanation. There may be an innocent explanation. It is becoming quite apparent that Mr Oldfield and Mr Ettridge have grabbed control of the One Nation Party and are two of the directors of One Nation Ltd. It is clear from revelations in today's press that they are directing the activities of the company and the party. The party's national spokesman ought to have a thorough investigation into the Vanuatu connection. The party's spokesman should hold an immediate press conference and detail the nature of the commissions that Mr Ettridge is on. There should be a full explanation as to whether or not Australian source income has been properly accounted for in relation to taxation matters and whether an advantage is being taken of a foreign tax haven.If it were the case that Australians who are Australian residents were able to divert funds through foreign tax havens the only losers would be the honest Australian taxpayers. They would be the losers because it is the honest PAYE taxpayer, who has to pay full tax in the dollar, who will have to make that up. They do not have the opportunity to set up companies in Vanuatu.All I am saying is what is on the public record, but the public is now owed a full explanation and the sooner it is given the better.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations565115:06:005651Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—During question time the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) claimed that I had admitted that the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport was, to use his words, `a sham'. I have made no such admission and any claim to that effect is completely wrong. The member for Lowe based his allegation on an article on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald some days ago, which in turn relied on a letter I wrote in relation to a letter written by the Sydney Airport Forum. That letter, which I am very happy to table, makes no such admission. In fact, it confirms the government's long-term operating plan. It notes that since the government came to office in March 1996 the proportion of movements to the north of the airport has dropped from about 50 per cent to 30 per cent. No group of residents in Sydney has benefited more than the residents in the electorate of the member for Lowe. I table the document.15:07:005651Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—Yes, I have been.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) accused me today in question time of attempting to scare people with physical disabilities when I asked a question of him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a personal explanation.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—That is untrue and it totally misrepresented my question and my request for the information contained in my question.Miscellaneous565215:07:005652Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to correct an omission from remarks made to the House last week.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I was commenting on the corporate structure of One Nation Ltd and I referred to facts contained in two newspaper articles. I acknowledged the Sydney Sun-Herald but I neglected to acknowledge the Melbourne Herald Sun . I do so now, and I congratulate the Herald Sun for their coverage of this issue.Documents56525652Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Commonwealth programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, for 1995-96—Handbook summary.Individual program descriptions.Environment, Recreation and the Arts—Standing Committee—Report, October 1997—Rethinking the funding of community sporting and recreational facilities: A sporting chance—Government response, June 1998.Finance—Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statement for May 1998. Supporting applications of issues from the Advance during May 1998.Provision for running costs borrowings—Statement for May 1998.Supporting applications of issues from the Provision during May 1998.Treaties—Bilateral—Regulation impact statement —Agreement on Mutual Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment, Certificates and Markings, between Australia and the European Community.Bilateral with national interest analyses —Agreement on Medical Treatment for Temporary Visitors between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand, done at Melbourne on 4 May 1998.Exchange of Notes, done at Canberra on 28 May 1998, constituting an implementing arrangement, between the Government of Australia and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) concerning plutonium transfers, under the agreement with EURATOM concerning transfers of nuclear material from Australia to EURATOM, and accompanying side letter No. 2, of 21 September 1981, and the implementing arrangement concerning plutonium transfers of 8 September 1993.Exchange of Notes, done at Canberra on 4 June 1998, constituting an agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America to further extend in force the Agreement relating to the Establishment of a Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap of 9 December 1966, as amended.Between Australia and the Republic of Poland on Extradition, done at Canberra on 3 June 1998.Multilateral with national interest analyses —Amendments, done at Oman in May 1998, to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling of 2 December 1946.Protocol, done at Port Moresby on 29 April 1998 concerning the Peace Monitoring Group made pursuant to and amending the Agreement between Australia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, New Zealand and Vanuatu concerning the neutral Truce Monitoring Group for Bougainville of 5 December 1997.Multilateral with national interest analysis and regulation impact statement —International Telecommunication Union Final Acts of the World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC-95), done at Geneva on 17 November 1995, Partial Revision of the Radio Regulations of 5 December 1979.United Nations—Committee on the Rights of the Child—Australia's first report under the Convention on the Rights of the Child— Attorney-General's statement.Australia's response to issues raised by the Committee.Concluding observations of the Committee: Australia.Correspondence to the Committee regarding corrections to the summary records of the 403rd, 404th and 405th meetings.Summary records of meetings—403rd, 404th, 405th.Matters of Public Importance5653565310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The government's failure to support Australia's manufacturing, innovation and creative industry base.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:10:005653Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—In 1996 the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) set three benchmarks of the government's performance on industry policy, and he has failed on every count. First, he promised to reduce the trade deficit on manufactured goods. What has been the result? By December last year the manufactured trade deficit had blown out to a record $13.3 billion, up over a third in just under two years. Second, the Prime Minister promised to improve Australia's performance on industrial research and development, but the results were cuts to R&D support programs which, in turn, have caused a collapse in business research with many companies taking their clever ideas offshore. Third—this was the doozey of the lot—he promised to create 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing industry by the year 2000. After 2¼ years there are fewer manufacturing jobs in Australia, not more. To be on target, the government should have created over 112,000 new manufacturing jobs; instead, they have lost 6,000. The promise has now become another non-core promise.It is little wonder that the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) walked away from that target in question time last week in response to a question from the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson). Instead, he talked about the government's overall record of 231,000 jobs in 27 months. Some achievement that was!EI4MOOREMr Moore—A great result!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The minister says, `Great result.' Let us compare it with Labor's last 27 months in office when we created 561,000 jobs, more than double the target that the minister is now claiming is a great achievement. Almost two-thirds of those jobs under us were full time but almost all the jobs under this government are part time.Labor was able to achieve it because it went for growth. But this government, through its policies, has slowed growth. It has pursued a deficit at any cost. It has been to the cost of the industry base, it has been to the cost of our current account, it has been to the cost of our foreign debt—all of which have blown out; and, in turn, that is what has cost the jobs in this country.Instead of going for growth, this government cut the business programs that had actually stimulated stronger and sustainable growth under us, leading to those 560,000 jobs. Essentially, by cutting those programs, this government has tried to fireproof the car by taking out its petrol. These were not just broken promises; they also involved the government walking away from an effective involvement in industry policy. Support for manufacturers under this government has declined from $560 million to $146 million, as has support for programs for exports.We hear the Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer) get up and talk about the export market development grants scheme and the great success it has been; the problem is that they have cut it and it has not been as successful as it could have been. Research for the so-called `clever country' has now been set back 15 years because, for the first time in 15 years, we have seen private sector research and development decline. Innovation, and jobs consequent upon that, is now being exported overseas. The Ericsson case is just another example. In all of the litany that the minister went through in answer to the question, he still did not say that 200 jobs are going to go and that the manufacturing base is going to disappear, essentially because of the cuts to research and development.We have seen the virtual abolition of AusIndustry and $100 million cut from Austrade. We also saw the abolition of the computer bounty. But no Australian industry has been untouched by this government's anti-business decisions. Take steel: when BHP announced the closure of its Newcastle steel plant, the Howard government was out to lunch—the minister in particular. He decided to attend the Crown Casino opening rather than a meeting of steelworkers and their families. The Prime Minister preferred to go and watch the cricket Test at Lord's rather than meet the Newcastle steelworkers. And they still have not introduced a steel plan.Burnie, another case in point, showed that the government had learnt nothing. The Prime Minister refused to go there. He refused to lift the telephone to Stan Wallis, his compatriot in terms of a GST, and he could not talk to him about reopening Burnie. Instead, he sent in the receivers—the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman)—the industry minister flew to Paris and the customs minister called the workers `rorters'. And there still was no industry plan.In relation to copyright, the government is pursuing copyright amendments which undermine the intellectual property in this country, through a weakening of the rules governing parallel imports. These amendments will allow the importation of inferior quality product and allow importers a free ride on firms which have made the investment in marketing and product development—putting Australian jobs at risk. Once again, just as it did with the cuts to R&D, this government is stifling Australian creativity. Rather than making our creative talent vulnerable, it should follow Labor's approach: work with the industry to devise an industry plan which wins the commitment to growth, renewed jobs, investment, net exports and R&D.In relation to shipbuilding, Australia has built a world-beating fast ferry industry from scratch over the last decade, but the Howard government moved away from that industry by abolishing its bounty, which it will abandon in 1999.EI4MOOREMr Moore—It's extended.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You extended it only because of pressure from us, but you are still going to end it in 1999, when we will continue it until the international agreement is signed. That is the position that you should be adopting to support this vital industry in Tasmania.On book printing, a quarter of the work force in the Victorian town of Maryborough, and hundreds of workers in other regional centres, rely on the Australian book printing industry. But the Howard government's response is to abolish their bounty and put 1,500 jobs at risk.With the automotive industry, after adopting Labor's plan, it has still not introduced the legislation into the parliament; and in relation to textiles, clothing and footwear not only has it not introduced the legislation but it has not announced the new import credit scheme. This is still a government that does not care about industry policy. It does not believe in it and it has no commitment to it. When it is forced to act, it comes in here and pretends that it has seen the light, but when it is let off the hook it will not even introduce the legislation.In most of these industries and on most of these issues, it is Labor that has led the effective campaign and forced the government to adopt our position or partially back down. More often than not, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has either been silent or has voted with the government. She voted with the government and against Labor when we were trying to make the Productivity Commission take account of the regional impact of its recommendations. She voted against Labor's attempts to stop the axing of the book bounty. She voted against Labor's rejection of the axing of four key infrastructure projects, including Queensland's Oakey power station. She voted against Labor in seeking to ensure that the Trade Practices Act incorporated committee recommendations in respect of fair trading to assist small business. And she did not even bother to turn up in relation to the axing of the ship bounty.So far as Labor is concerned, we are the party for national development. We have a vision for a more vibrant, competitive and outward looking economy. Our industry policy is about looking forward, making more of our opportunities and doing it in partnership with industry. The government has to play a key role—not this sitting back on the side, out to lunch sort of business that has been going on, and which we have documented—through facilitation and policy settings to drive the national development agenda.Our industry policy reinforces this role for government. It is built around five pillars: the vision, strategic action plans, innovation, investment attraction and enterprise improvement. For example, we do not believe industry programs should be held hostage to a three-year electoral cycle. We support five-year funding. We want to lock in a bipartisan approach to industry policy so industry can plan with confidence.We are committed to abolishing the Industry Commission and replacing it with a national development authority. We want to extend the reciprocal obligation principle requiring firm commitments on jobs, investment, exports and research and development, in exchange for assistance provided. Why should it be only the long-term unemployed and unemployed youth who have to make a reciprocal obligation? If we are forging a partnership with business, what about their commitment to this nation? What is the point of insisting upon 15 per cent return to capital if you are not going to invest the capital in this nation and in job opportunities, only to see it going offshore? What Labor is saying is: we want to extend the reciprocal obligation policy to underpin the partnership, the commitment to growth and the commitment to jobs.We are committed to developing strategic action plans in key industry sectors to underpin that partnership. Reciprocity will be a key element of the partnership, and targets will be set against which progress can be measured. We are also committed to building our infra structure base—something I spoke about at greater length last week.For Labor, an active industry policy is central to the task of growing this nation. It recognises that the best way to achieve higher economic growth is to adopt a strategic, innovative approach and to know that you have a government that backs that approach. It is no coincidence that in our years in government those industries which did receive assistance—which were part of the shared strategy—grew the fastest. Labor has shown it can deliver sustained growth. Through sound industry policy we can drive net export growth, thereby correcting the current account. We can address the balance of payments constraint—the thing that has been holding back our ability to sustain economic growth at that higher level. If we get that equation right, we will solve the unemployment problem.We have said that reciprocal obligation is at the core of what we are talking about with industry policy. We will do that through the strategic action plans, essentially a partnership between business and government by which, in each of the key sectors, we identify the potential and the barriers to realising that potential, we develop collectively solutions to address the barriers and we commit to common objectives through targets.That is what we would be doing now with the steel industry and with the pulp and paper industry, because those industries are in crisis under this government. We would also be sitting down with the telecommunications industry to ensure that Ericcson's jobs were not going back overseas, to ensure that we could get the best out of this nation, to make the most of our natural resource base, our skill base, our innovation base and our creative base. That is what we should be doing, but this government will not lift a hand. This government does not care.Let me go finally to the question of tax. The most effective con job conducted by this government has been that perpetrated on some members of the business community elite, who have signed up to the GST in the guise of tax reform. The GST has become a substitute for real policies designed to generate real jobs and real invest ment. Given the problems facing the country—the current account and slower growth—what is needed is business tax reform and policies which are complementary to what we have been advocating on the industry policy approach.We need tax policies which will drive new investment in value added goods and services for net export growth. We need reform which encourages investment in infrastructure and in innovation, in connecting the good ideas to their commercialisation, in actively encouraging a successful venture capital market and in making the most of our natural resources, our skills, our innovation, our education attainability and our creative strengths. If we get that right, we will take this nation forward.But nothing in the discussion that has been occurring between the Business Council and the government covers any of these issues. Nowhere is there a commitment to new investment on the back of their GST. Not only have we got a tax under them which will be inequitable and hit families, it will do nothing for growth, and that is being cried out for. Under this government we are not getting any policy. (Time expired)15:25:005656Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—There is no doubt about the old gadfly. He is out there running around talking to everybody under the sun. He today asked the second question since November on industry policy. It is no wonder he is out here with the MPI today, because he knows that tomorrow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) will want to talk and he knows that Beazley has to have the last day, so he had to get in today. What does he do? He asks the second question since November and gets the MPI. That is a really good start. It shows you the great interest of the plumber. He is not interested in industry policy; he has taken up plumbing. He is down there throwing the dirt around—`Don't worry about industry policy, we will get on to other things.'In the meantime, can I suggest that the Ericsson question be addressed more thoroughly. When I came to the office this morning, there were big headlines saying, `Ericsson's leaves Australia.' I got on to the managing director and said, `Is that true?' He said, `No, it is not.' The industry spokesman got up and said, `They are all off.' I asked him to send up a statement of exactly where he was in relation to this. He said:Ericsson Australia said today that it had no intention of withdrawing operations from Australia. . . . Australia has been identified as a host for key Ericsson regional centres, such as the Regional Supply Centre, Training and Education Centre, Service Centre, Competence Centre and the Global Design Centre among others. With these initiatives in place, Ericsson Australia will continue to build on the high level competencies available in Australia, strengthening its presence and outlook.That is no resignation from Australia. It means more jobs in the higher paid sectors. It means more commitment to IT and the research and development we so badly need in this area. So the very premise on which the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) leads off in his gadfly sort of way is wrong. Make the assertion, colour and movement, no fact. Don't worry about the truth of the statement, just assert it. That is the usual sort of thing that he goes on with.What has the government been doing since we came to office? When we came to office in March 1996, there was no industry policy. It had collapsed. Richardson admitted that. He said it straight out. The member for Hotham said, `Maybe we made a few mistakes.' Even he owned up. It took a while, but even he owned up in the end. So we systematically went about the work we had on hand.First of all, do you remember the research and development syndicates? That was the member for Hotham's special little area where he fixed up his mates in the Rolls-Royces. We had to clean that area up. In IT there had been no review for ten years, so we moved on that area. In the manufacturing sector, there had been 200,000 jobs lost by Labor. We hear a lot about jobs. In the `recession we had to have', 200,000 jobs were removed from that area by Labor. We had record debt and record interest rates. And don't forget the `recession we had to have' which went with these situations.Our international competitiveness, which must drive Australia all the time to get to 2010 and meet the open competition that year, in this period fell from 10 to 21. What a record. Labor failed industry in this nation. Graham Richardson attested to that. He said that the greatest single mistake of successive Labor governments from 1983 to 1996 was the failure to develop a cohesive industry policy. When Richardson says that, you have to take notice in the Labor Party.What did we do? We set about a systematic review of industry in this nation. We called upon David Mortimer to undertake a complete review of all government support across the board. We asked Professor Goldsworthy and Mr Cutler to take a complete review of the IT industries. It was the first strategic review of IT for ten years, as I said before. It is very significant. This is a very big area for Australia and something which we really have to hold on to and develop. So we put those two people onto that task.In the area of cars, we answered the challenge of the post-2000 period. When the Productivity Commission came forward with their recommendations, the government was driven by its key areas of industry policy: investment, research and development innovation, and exports. Those three things led us in government to make the decision to extend the tariffs to the year 2005 and implement a significant investment program. There has been a significant response to that by the industry itself. Something like $4 billion has been committed to it so far in relation to the auto producers themselves, and the component manufacturers are making enormous developments in these areas, especially with magnesium and the like.We pressed on to TCF, a very hard area to handle in terms of regions and employment. There we came up with another program, with heavy reliance on investment, research and development, and pushing them into export areas. We are doing something for our future. We answered the question of pharmaceuticals, another area looked at comprehensively by the government in industry policy. In this time, since March 1996, we have covered the whole area of industry policy in this nation. We have had the most comprehensive review of industry policy in 20 years and this has been endorsed not only by members of the manufacturing sector and other areas but also by the very many people who have understood the concepts that we have put behind this in relation to it.There are a number of initiatives from the statement Investing for Growth, made in December by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), which we have already implemented. The government has moved in terms of research and development, a very significant area. We have started and extended the new START program. We have introduced innovation funds because we in Australia know that one of the missing links has been the development of venture capital. Good ideas and research and development have not been taken up because of the reluctance of the private investor to get involved in the commercialisation of the sector. So we introduced innovation funds, which have been a great success, and five have already been announced and taken up. In relation to extended areas of research and development, we have made it possible to get up to the equivalent of a 200 per cent deduction if you are in the competitive area of research and development.In terms of investment, Mr Bob Mansfield was appointed as the strategic investment coordinator to assist the government in reviewing various projects that come to hand. Already, we have enabled the Kistler space launching facility at Woomera in South Australia to be established. Wholesale sales tax in relation to that project was reviewed to enable that project to take place. That has been progressed in a number of other areas. We have moved on manufacture in bond and have allotted the first licence in that area. It is a very significant step to be able to bring in manufacture in Australia and re-export those products without incurring government costs in that area. None of these things were done under Labor—or thought of. As I said, this is the most comprehensive review in 20 years.To promote Australia as a financial centre, we have moved to develop the new Tradex program. Information technology is a special area and was mentioned today by the member for Hotham. In this area, as I said at question time, a ministerial council has been set up, chaired by Senator Alston, which is responsible for a whole of government response to information online service strategies. The government established a National Office of the Online Economy, for which Senator Alston is also responsible. We have announced the removal of tariffs on inputs to IT manufacturing in Australia—a very significant step indeed. The measure is projected to save Australian IT manufacturers more than $80 million over the next 18 months.The government, as of tomorrow, will be starting up its first action agenda in the information industry sector, at a cost of some $28 million. In particular, it will set up a network of software engineering quality centres and a new testing conformance infrastructure. These are necessary since the withdrawal of Telstra from this field and will enable a wider number of bodies, both small and large, to test new products. So I think the government has responded in a very comprehensive way to a lot of the areas set out in Investing for Growth which was, as I was saying, a very significant statement.In contrast, what has Labor done? They run around, but I do not know what their policy is. They come out making a wild series of statements, I am fully aware of that. But what really is their policy? They have not got any policy. The member for Hotham has asked only two questions on industry policy since November last year and he comes to the third last day of the winter sittings before he can get an MPI up, so he cannot be too interested in industry policy.Labor are going to run around with industry and say, `Look, we will do special deals with our mates.' That is one thing the member for Hotham is good at. It is a really hot point. It is in the documents. Labor are saying they will get back to mutual commitment where industry agrees to a precise job in exports and investments and, in return, in government they will help them along. I assume that means that all those who do not go along and cooperate with the government get no assistance. They are saying that if you come to the government, they will give you something but if you do not talk to them, they will give you nothing. So in government they would divide everyone up. The Labor mates would get a few bob and the others are to be forgotten about. This is the new-found industry policy of the Labor Party. It is back to the bad old days down at the ACTU and the New South Wales Right, hand in the pocket. They have been at that for years. There is nothing new about this. This is the greatest mob of failed politicians I have seen in all my life.Those opposite ask us to go and look at the past. Business expenditure under Labor on R&D as a share of GDP was 25 per cent lower than the OECD average. Under Labor, Australia slipped from 18th to 24th in terms of business expenditure on R&D. It is no wonder they run around and talk about these terrible things. Labor's foreign investment policy promised to promote Australia as an attractive and highly competitive destination for investment, said Senator Cook in San Francisco. Labor's business investment averaged under five per cent per year. Under the coalition, business investment has grown by more than 17 per cent since March 1996. The CSIRO is one of Australia's great scientific institutions. Labor promised to cut $60 million from Australian funding in 1995-96. The coalition moved to restore that, and I am very pleased that happened.In terms of international competitiveness, under Labor Australia fell from 10th to 21st position in the Institute of Management Development ranking of international competitiveness. In only two years the coalition had turned Australia's competitiveness around, improving six places to 15th place in the IMD's world ranking. Inflation under Labor averaged 5.5 per cent between March 1983 and March 1986. Inflation now is at the lowest sustained levels ever recorded—below one per cent.Turning to overdraft rates—and who in business does not understand the importance of interest rates and the cost of money in this nation?—under Labor, business overdraft rates reached 20.8 per cent in 1990, and you probably would have paid a lot more than that in the fringe market. Under the coalition, bank overdraft rates are now 7½ per cent, having fallen 3½ per cent in two years. The government's net debt is just under 20 per cent of GDP in 1995-96. Based on current projections and including the Telstra sale and receipts, Commonwealth general government net debt will decline to around 1½ per cent of GDP by the year 2000-01.Unemployment under Labor averaged 8.7 per cent. Presently it is averaging 8.1 per cent. The Labor recession caused the worst unemployment in 60 years—an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent with youth unemployment over 26 per cent. Turning to manufacturing unemployment—and we hear this from the opposition—under Labor, some 200,000 jobs went despite the fact that it is one of Australia's largest areas of employment. It was unable to make the slightest positive contribution to economic growth in 1995.When Labor were getting towards the end and they were running around looking for something to do, they decided to have a brand new industry statement—Innovate Australia. They could not agree on it, so in the end the department had to cobble together a series of press statements. It was really a great event. When it came out with all the bluster and hoo-ha that went with it, what happened? In the innovation statement, the total outlays over four years were going to be $465 million. But what did they charge and raise from industry in the same statement? Some $818 million. The opposition talk about who has given the most to industry, who has given the most support to industry, who is backing them up and doing the right thing? In your last effort at it, you gave them $400 million and you took back $800 million. With Invest Australia, we put out $1.4 billion and you have never matched it.DT4CREANMr Crean—When are you going to start making an effort?EI4Moore, John, MPMr MOORE—You can say all the things you like. The great gadfly from Hotham has no policy and no action. (Time expired)15:40:005659O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—After that rambling, incomprehensible speech by the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore), we on this side of the House really rest our case. Just have a look at your own back bench. If it is a case of `Oh, lonesome me' defending the government's industry policy, then you are it. The minister claims in this debate that he has conducted the most comprehensive review of industry policy in 20 years. Minister, where are the results of this great industry review and your performance? I will tell you what they are: low economic growth, high unemployment, low job growth, jobs lost by the thousand in manufacturing—and you and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) still persist with the fantasy that you have fireproofed the Australian economy from the Asian economic firestorm.This Howard government is the worst government in Australia's history. After winning a substantial majority when it was elected in 1996, John Howard and Peter Costello have squandered their accumulated political capital in a manner which has left the Liberal backbench sullen and angry, and the electorate bitter and disappointed. In 27 months in office this has been a government of dishonesty, a government of betrayal, a government of incompetence and a government lacking leadership of substance. In no other policy area has this dishonesty, this betrayal, this incompetence and this lack of leadership been more manifest than in the area of industry policy. Australia's great manufacturing industries are reeling from Asia's economic turmoil. But if that were not enough, they have to contend with a government which is in an advanced state of panic and decay and incapable of developing and implementing a coherent industry policy to guide the national economy through these very troubled times.What manufacturing industry wanted from this government was stability. What it got was seven resignations in 27 months. That is almost one in every four months. This government has not even been able to go a footy season without a resignation. What manufacturing industry wanted was ministerial competence. The government got John Moore, who should have been sacked for his own breaches of ministerial conduct. What manufacturing industry wanted was that the promises that were made would be promises that would be kept. But in shipbuilding, printing, automotive, textiles, clothing and footwear, and research and development all it got was broken promises. What manufacturing industry wanted was a federal government that was able to articulate a vision for Australian manufacturing in the new millennium. What it got was a government that has ripped the heart out of research and development and massively cut expenditure on education and training, the pillars on which Australia's future prosperity will be built.The electorate of Corio, which I represent in this parliament, has a very strong manufacturing base. Its key manufacturing industries are automotive and component manufacture, and textiles, clothing and footwear manufacture. In both of these areas we have seen a comprehensive betrayal by this minister and by this government. On 5 June 1997, the Prime Minister and the minister announced the government's decision in relation to the automotive industry.DT4CREANMr Crean—More than 12 months ago.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Twelve months ago the minister announced the government's decision with regard to this very critical industry to Australia and my electorate. You adopted major elements of our industry plan, and some of what you announced we did not agree with. But there is no certainty as far as this industry is concerned because 12 months down the line you have done nothing to introduce into this House the legislation that gives effect to the industry plan that you announced over one year ago. That is a betrayal of the workers in Geelong and the automotive workers throughout Australia and a betrayal of the regions that rely on this great industry.The government made its announcement in relation to the TCF industries in September 1997. The government has taken no legislative action on the commitments that it made to the textiles, clothing and footwear industries of this nation at that time. This represents another betrayal of the 3,000 workers in my electorate who depend on this industry for their livelihood and the great regions of Australia in which this particular industry is situated. If we go to the printing industry, that is only a little betrayal because the government made its commitment six months ago and has done nothing about it.It is not only in the broad industry policy areas that this government has been found wanting. In very specific areas of policy that require some intellectual analysis and a sophisticated response this government has demonstrated its capacity not to grasp the complexities of policy or understand the implications of what it intends to do. One such area has already been mentioned today in debate in this House—the proposed amendments to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 . In particular, schedule 3 removes the safeguards currently available to Australian copyright holders and allows parallel imports of goods where there is copyright on accessories such as packaging and labelling. What the government is proposing has the potential to create widespread unemployment in a range of industries, including the food and beverages, apparel, footwear and fashion accessories industries. These problems are symptomatic of the government's whole industry policy approach: failure to understand the implications of what they are doing and failure to consult with key industry stakeholders on issues that affect them.The government's industry policy failure is evidenced by the collapse of manufacturing jobs over the past two years. The Prime Minister promised to create 200,000 new manufacturing jobs by the year 2000. The record shows that, in the 27 months since the election, there has been a loss in manufacturing jobs in this country. Indeed, last year 32,900 manufacturing workers lost their jobs. The true situation for industry in Australia is contained in the budget. Net export growth will drop, business investment growth will slow and demand for research and development funds from the government is at an all-time low. The budget does not allocate one cent to the textiles, clothing and footwear package. We have seen a decline in support for manufacturing industry, we have seen a collapse in assistance for the information technology industries in this country and we have seen the virtual abolition of AusIndustry support for enterprise development.Of course, this contrasts with Labor's success in office. Those elements have already been outlined by the member for Hot ham (Mr Crean), but I will quote a few here. Under Labor, we saw manufacturing reach record growth with a 12.2 per cent increase in production in 1994 alone. In plans for sectors such as the motor vehicle industry, we saw exports climb from less than $400 million in 1984 to $1.5 billion in 1994. We saw support for science and technology increased to $3.2 billion a year.This government has comprehensively failed in one of the most critical areas of public policy today. This government's policy is being administered by a minister who does not deserve the portfolio. In the hallowed halls of industry across the length and breadth of this country the minister is a joke and so is his government. Australian industry will not be placed in a very good position beyond the year 2000 if the policies and the lack of direction that we currently face continue to be pursued. There is one simple solution to this: that we cut the Liberal-National Party cancer out of the body politic in Australia. The sooner the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) calls the election, the sooner Australian industry will have a real government in this country that will address its longstanding needs for a policy direction of substance. It will get that when this electorate elects a Labor government.15:50:005661McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNP10—I am very pleased to be participating in this matter of public importance debate. Correct if I am wrong—perhaps I am misreading their mood—but it seems to me that the opposition do not have their hearts in this matter of public importance, as evidenced by the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) and the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor). They came in and they read their speeches. Their passion for industry, their outrage, is so significant that they came in with some speeches written by their staff. They made a number of assertions and trotted out some old cliches.Does the opposition know why this MPI cannot be taken seriously? There are a number of reasons, but this is the main reason: if the government's industry policy has been so calamitous over the last 2½ years, as they allege; if industry is besieged; and if there has been a collapse of 200,000 jobs, as alleged by the member for Corio, why haven't the opposition done something about it before now? Why is the industry question asked today only the second industry question in the last eight months? Why is this the only MPI on industry that we have had for some 12 months? If things are as bad as the opposition make out, why haven't they been performing their responsibility as an opposition and drawing the situation to the attention of the House? It is simply because the government has cut the ground completely and utterly from underneath them.The government has performed extremely well in all the complex and often interrelated issues of industry policy since coming to office. Finally, to put the opposition's baying to rest once and for all, the government released late last year `Investing for growth'—the most complete, creditable industry policy released by any government for several decades. So the hype, the exaggeration and the overstatement of their case that we have seen here today have fallen very flat. That is what you would expect from the Labor Party.Any industry policy debate should be kicked off with the words of former Senator Graham Richardson, a cabinet minister in both the Hawke and Keating governments, which appeared in the Bulletin on 17 June last year. The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) has already briefly referred to the article. Former Senator Richardson said:The greatest mistake of successive Labor governments from 1983 to 1996 was the failure to develop a coherent industry policy.But just in case anybody should think Senator Richardson was on an adventure of his own, and settling some old scores—heaven forbid—he was corroborated by the shadow minister for industry, the member for Hotham, Simon Crean, on Radio National on 11 August last year when he confessed:I think we have to admit we did not get it all right.They certainly did not get any of it right. You only have to look at their performance over 13 years to see the disastrous consequences of their industry policies such as they were. And they are still at it! That is the amazing thing. Does Labor ever learn anything?We saw the release of their platform policy in January at the Labor Party conference and recently the draft industry development plan of the member for Hotham. What you have got to remember about this 1½-page effort is that it is just a reworking of Labor's track record in government; that is, they will intervene very selectively, according to what suits their political interests more than anything else, in certain sectors and abandon others. One of the most amazing things is that Labor tried to dress this up with some form of respectability by saying:. . . Labor believes that industry policy measures must be developed and implemented on the basis of a shared responsibility.That is a nice motherhood introduction. It continues:Assistance provided to industries will therefore be on the basis of a firm commitment between government and industry—a mutual commitment whereby industry agrees to specific job, export and investment targets in exchange for government providing the best possible environment to achieve those targets.The best possible environment! It is a party that gave us record inflation and record unemployment, record interest rates, that plunged the economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression of the early 1930s. But, even if we were to allow them a fresh start, they are condemned by their own modern words, for what does it mean: will require `specific job, export and investment targets'? Spell it out. What are the criteria? What is the measurement? What is the enforcement? What is the penalty? None of this, in either the platform or the subsequent industry development plan, is announced for us to judge.What happens if they give assistance on the basis of targets being satisfied and those targets are not met? Is the money withdrawn? What if certain industries cannot meet those targets? Do they miss out? Even Labor's car and steel plans would have failed these tests. They would not have met any test for re-investment, for jobs, for targets or for export benchmarks, because both those plans saw a loss of jobs in those industries across the life of the plan.These are hollow statements. They do not add up. They are pandering to a sectoral part of the community all right, and that is the trade union movement more than anything else. There are no clear details. We do not know what they mean. The Labor Party will not expand on these broadest of policy statements. We do not know how much they will cost. We do not know what paperwork and red tape they will require. And we certainly do not know what they will really do for industry.But it is not just us asking these questions and making these condemnations. Alan Mitchell, in the Financial Review of 21 January this year, said:It is difficult to imagine a clearer . . . example in Australia of the failure of intellectual and political leadership.Ross Gittins, in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 June 1997:It takes no expertise, no thought, no courage—and no integrity—to lurch back to the policies of the `60's, and that's the best Kim can come up with.Meanwhile, his rival, Simon Crean, has something new and exciting: "industry policy"—which means lots of "plans" and Budget subsidies, with Simon doing all the deals with his Melbourne manufacturing mates.Apparently this is something we've never tried before.The Age editorial of 24 November last year, headed `Labor looks to the past for its future', said the platform:. . . relies on broad statements of social-democratic principle, rather than detailed policies of the kind laid down in the existing platform. This means that it remains unclear just where the Labor party is headed . . . And the list goes on and on. Max Walsh, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12 November 1996, said that `Simon Crean's interventionism is simply a re-packaging' of the historically documented problems of protectionism and it will be a `costly mistake'. There is page after page of ridicule and condemnation of the member for Hotham, in particular, but also the Labor Party that is endorsing his ad hoc, ill-defined and generalised industry intervention policies.In place of Labor's confusion and uncertainties, and outright superficialities, you have the government's industry policy. I wonder whether or not the opposition has bothered to read the `Investing for growth' document of the government. There you will see every aspect of industry policy comprehensively brought together, as well as an array of government financial assistance and incentives.Quite frankly, Labor has nothing to tell the government about industry policy because the major initiatives for the government's policy of investing for growth include provision of over $1 billion for four years for targeted support for innovation. We more proactively promote Australia's advantages as an investment location through the Invest Australia program. We have specific incentives to attract strategic investment projects to Australia. We expanded the export market development grants scheme. We introduced a new system, as the minister referred to earlier on, of manufacture in bond. We introduced a range of taxation measures to increase the attractiveness of Australia as a financial centre, providing $80 million over four years. As well as that we have a 125 per cent tax incentive for R&D, and we have got a range of programs which provide for targeted support for basic R&D, commercialisation and technology diffusion.The government's policy, whether microeconomically directed or by macroeconomic settings, is to make sure Australia's economy is strong, is competitive, is export orientated and is able to meet the challenges of a greater and greater free trade. The Labor Party have put together a gladbag of ideas, mostly drawn from the wish list of their union or manufacturing mates. It serves only a small sector of their constituency and not Australian industry as a whole. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Committees56635663566310000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution agreed to by the Senate on 29 June 1998 relating to a reference to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities on whether there needs to be further reform of the law regulating industrial relations and/or corporations.Bills5663The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 Committees56635663566310000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 10 August 1998. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 10 August 1998Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 10 August 1998. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 COMMUNICATIONS, TRANSPORT AND MICROECONOMIC REFORM—STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on the role of rail in the national transport network.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 45 minutes.Speech time limits—First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr Price to move:That this House notes with concern that:(1) the National Competition Council (NCC) recommendations to deregulate the postal service have led to Australia Post developing secret plans to close mail sorting centres at Albury, Goulburn, Dubbo, Kempsey and Casino;(2) both the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, Senator Alston, have welcomed the NCC report;(3) up to 300 postal workers' jobs in regional New South Wales will be put at risk with thousands of other Australia Post jobs at risk if the recommendations are implemented; and(4) the NCC has recommended that business mail in metropolitan areas be opened to competition resulting in a loss of business for Australia Post and therefore denying Australia Post the ability to cross-subsidise and guarantee a quality service to rural and regional New South Wales.Time allotted—private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.2Mr 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.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits— Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr Fitzgibbon to move:That this House:(1) notes mining giant Rio Tinto's (a) record of human rights violation, (b) breaches of international labour laws and (c) failure to provide a safe working environment for many of its employees around the world; and(2) condemns the Howard Government's support for Rio Tinto's attack on Australian working conditions.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.5664566416:01:005664Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the third, fourth and fifth reports of the committee for 1998 relating to the East Coast Armament Complex, Point Wilson, Victoria, development of the Eastern Region Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales and redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland.Ordered that the reports be printed.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—by leave—I thank the House. The first report which I have tabled concerns the proposed construction of an east coast armament complex at Point Wilson, Victoria. This proposal involves the construction of a facility at Point Wilson to support ammunitioning and deammunitioning of the navy's warships and for a Defence import facility for explosive ordnance.The extent of the proposal involved explosive and non-explosive storehouses, a transit facility, container parking and truck holding bays, an administration centre, a workshop security checkpoint, an isolation facility, engineering services and civil works. In addition, the existing jetty, which is nearly two kilometres long, and wharf amenities were proposed for refurbishment. When referred to the committee, the estimated outturn cost of the proposal was $72.27 million. The committee has recommended that the proposal not proceed as proposed.The report traces the history of this proposal, which has its origins in the need to close what Defence have called the Sydney ammunition pipeline. This involves transporting ordnance by truck and by barge from the ordnance storage facilities in western Sydney to the fleet base at Garden Island. The committee recognised the need for this practice to cease. At present, the importation of explosive ordnance takes place through Point Wilson. It was submitted that Point Wilson was the only site that could provide both a deammunitioning facility and a 1,000 tonne net explosives quantity container import facility.In terms of the navy's operational requirements, the committee found that Point Wilson was highly unsatisfactory due to: the distance from the fleet base in Sydney Harbour and the navy's exercise area off Jervis Bay; the depth of water available for its largest ship, which would not allow berthing when fully loaded; and the lengthy road journey to Kingswood in western Sydney and return to allow for servicing of unloaded weaponry. The reality was that ships would travel all the way from Sydney to Port Philip Bay where they would have 30 tonnes of ammunition unloaded. They would then travel all the way back to Sydney for repairs. During that period, a trucking exercise would take the ordnance back up to western Sydney for service and maintenance, and then all of those processes would be repeated.The committee also found that berthing facilities at Point Wilson require extensive upgrading to provide a long-term loading and unloading capability for the importation of explosive ordnance and the ammunitioning and deammunitioning of naval vessels. It would also require the purchase of expensive land for further buffer purposes. These disadvantages were considered acceptable to the Department of Defence on the understanding that no suitable 1,000 tonne net explosive quantity facility existed elsewhere. However, inquiries by the committee have established that such a licensed facility—Port Alma, the port for Rockhampton in Queensland—exists already. In fact, most consignments of Defence ordnance, transported on specialised chartered container ships, berth at Port Alma to unload other portions of their cargo—mainly for commercial reasons—before proceeding to Point Wilson. Port Alma is fully licensed for a 1,500 tonne net explosive quantity, and is serviced within 20 kilometres by a state government explosives magazine.The committee recognised that Port Alma would impose an additional distance for land transportation back to storage facilities in western Sydney. However, this is offset by reduced sea transport to Point Wilson and the fact that very small quantities of containers—approximately 100 per annum—are involved. A slight increase in freight costs easily outweighs the $24.757 million required to upgrade Point Wilson to provide a long-term import facility.Based on these factors, once the need for a dual facility is discounted, and because the navy requirement for deammunitioning is approximately 30 tonnes net explosive quantity, the committee concluded that numerous deepwater facilities closer to Sydney, capable of meeting this criterion, are available and should be investigated. One such location is Twofold Bay—the bay upon which the town of Eden is established—which offers excellent low-cost or free land for onshore facilities and buffer zones both for the current proposal and for future expansion. In this regard, were these matters to proceed, there is a very significant role for the New South Wales government in speedily providing what is forest land, of which very small portions are needed for the actual facilities but large areas that are untouched would become a buffer zone.We have interviewed officials of the New South Wales government. We sincerely hope that they will be forthcoming in encouraging this facility to be established in the state of New South Wales. The committee therefore has recommended that the Department of Defence should re-examine the works in this reference and undertake further investigations into alternatives covered in the report, with a view to referring the revised proposal for an armament complex to the committee at a later but, I hope, early date.The second report which I have tabled involves the proposed development of the Eastern Region Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales. In brief, this involves a proposal for the construction of a new facility at RAAF Base Williamtown to enable the No. 41 Wing Headquarters and No. 3 Control and Reporting Unit to be collocated and integrated. When referred to the committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposal was $18 million.The committee has recommended that this proposal should proceed. The committee has concluded that there is a need to provide facilities for No. 41 Wing and its subordinate units to improve their operational effectiveness. A purpose designed Sector Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown would be available to back up the one in Northern Australia, in keeping with the accepted concept of a layered air defence system. Construction of a new facility would ensure compatibility with new equipment being acquired, and the new facility would be purpose built to suit contemporary operational needs.The remaining conclusions address savings which would stem from the proposal in addition to enhanced operational effectiveness. The report also recommends the need for urgent Commonwealth, state and local government action to address the question of responsibilities for flood mitigation measures and to combine forces to undertake the necessary measures.The third report which I have tabled concerns the proposed redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley. When referred to the committee, the estimated out turn cost of the proposed work was $73.7 million. The committee has recommended that the project should proceed as proposed.As one of the RAAF's major air bases, RAAF Base Amberley is the home base of the RAAF's Strike Reconnaissance Group and supports a variety of other air force units. Despite investment and new facilities which have been made over the past three decades, many of the existing base facilities are over 50-years-old. Some buildings used for the support of F111 aircraft are converted buildings which were constructed during the Second World War. An examination of the future direction of the base, undertaken by the Department of Defence, identified deficiencies which adversely affect the ability of the base to perform its designated roles in a safe and flexible manner.The committee therefore has concluded that a need exists to redevelop or provide new facilities at RAAF Base Amberley to enhance operational training, aircraft maintenance, logistics, and domestic and ancillary capabilities. The scope of the proposed works can be justified as addressing shortcomings in the existing facilities and infrastructure that have contributed to inefficient work practices and reduced productivity levels. The new work will contribute to increased compliance with modern health and safety standards.A number of heritage buildings are proposed to be demolished to make way for new facilities or because they will no longer be required when the project is completed. Arising from concerns expressed by a number of heritage organisations, the committee therefore has recommended that the Department of Defence should consult further with heritage authorities before demolishing these buildings.Similarly, because a number of highly toxic substances are used in the maintenance of F111 aircraft, the committee has recommended that, as part of the project, the Department of Defence should undertake a detailed study of liquid trade waste generation—its storage, treatment and disposal—to eliminate any risk of toxic substances entering waterways adjacent to the base or entering the watertable. I commend these reports to the House.5666566616:12:005666Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report: Report No. 362—General and specific purpose payments to states .Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—The Australian states and territories are dependent on funding from the Commonwealth for a significant proportion of their expenditure. The financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth to state and local governments is a substantial component of both the outlays of the Commonwealth and the revenues of the other levels of government. It accounted for approximately 20 per cent of the total outlays of the Commonwealth general government sector in 1996-97. It also represented approximately 37 per cent of the total revenues of the state general government sector, and 19 per cent of that of the local general government sector.All Commonwealth payments to the states and territories are made as specific purpose payments or general purpose payments. The grants are contingent upon the fulfilment of a wide range of terms and conditions. The conditions which the Commonwealth usually attaches to the use of SPP funds are generally set out in Commonwealth legislation, in agreements concluded between the parties, or in other program documentation. While conditions are not imposed on the states' use of GPPs, some conditions are attached to the receipt of those funds. These conditions are set out in states grants general purposes legislation.The JCPAA was asked by the Senate to report on conditions which may appropriately be attached to both SPPs and GPPs. From its examination of SPP program administrative arrangements, the committee reached a number of conclusions regarding SPP payments and conditions which may appropriately be attached to them.In particular, the committee believes that Commonwealth departments should draw upon the ideal features, which it has set out in this report, in preparing specific conditions to be attached to individual SPPs under their administration. For example, the committee believes that, for efficient and effective management of SPP programs, it is important that SPP program objectives are specified in terms of clear, achievable and measurable outcomes; that the roles of the parties to SPP arrangements and their responsibilities for particular program management activities are clearly defined; and that SPP financial accountability requirements are as streamlined as possible. I turn now to general purpose payments. The committee examined the four payment conditions which the states are currently required to meet for receipt of GPP funds. The most significant of the four conditions requires the states to comply with obligations relating to the implementation of national competition policy and related industry reform. The Commonwealth will make payments totalling some $16 billion over nine years to the states if they make satisfactory progress in implementing the reforms.The case of national competition payments indicates that conditional GPP funding can advance broader agreed reform agendas under particular circumstances. This suggests to the committee that there is potential for greater conditional GPP funding in the future, particularly where there is shared Commonwealth and state commitment to regulatory reform, where there are demonstrable economic or other benefits to the Australian people in the national economy and where agreed funding conditions satisfactorily address the particular interests of the Commonwealth and the states.Other GPP payment conditions require the states to make payments to the Commonwealth in the form of fiscal contributions and higher education superannuation contributions. The states are also required to make payments for any Commonwealth grants to higher education student organisations as a consequence of state actions preventing or hindering the collection of student organisation fees. Each of these conditions was enacted to deal with special circumstances, and it is not likely to have more general application to GPP funding in the future. The committee therefore concluded that there is little to be gained from attempting to prescribe a definite list of specific conditions which might appropriately be applied to hypothetical future conditional GPP funding arrangements. These conditions would need to be determined for each case.The report also addresses conditions relating to the role of state auditors-general. The committee found that problems have been encountered by state auditors-general when financial audit and acquittal responsibilities are imposed on them under SPP arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states. The committee believes that, in the interests of enhancing the public accountability of Commonwealth and state government agencies for specific purpose payments programs, without compromising the statutory independence of state auditors-general, it is important that responsibilities for the financial certification of SPP payments are not imposed on state auditors-general. It is important that opportunities for the conduct of coordinated or joint audits of SPP programs by Commonwealth and state auditors-general continue to be actively pursued.The JCPAA was also asked to inquire into `recent developments concerning the Victorian Auditor-General'. Although the committee found this part of the terms of reference to be imprecise, the committee has taken it to allude to the review of the Victorian Audit Act 1994, which was initiated by the Victorian government in 1996. In the committee's view, this is a matter which falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the state of Victoria. The JCPAA's mandate is limited to the Commonwealth sphere.This committee, like its predecessor, the JCPA, has been very mindful of its duties and responsibilities as set out under the act. The JCPA, in inquiring into the administration of specific purpose payments in 1994 and 1995, did not comment on the administrative practices of the non-Commonwealth parties to SPP agreements. Accordingly, the JCPAA has not addressed the issue of `recent developments concerning the Victorian Auditor-General' in this report. This report has drawn attention to the range of conditions attached to general purpose and specific purpose payments and identified ideal features of these conditions. It has highlighted the significant and special place of the auditors-general in the overall accountability framework for the administration of these payments. Finally, constitutionally the Commonwealth may grant financial assistance to the states and territories on such terms and conditions as the parliament sees fit. It is the parliament which is ultimately both the arbiter of the conditions attached to general and specific purpose payments and the institution to which government agencies are accountable for the administration of those payments.In conclusion, I wish to thank the secretariat staff who have assisted in the production of this report: Gillian Gould; Laura Gillies; in particular, Russell Lapthorne, from the Australian National Audit Office; and the secretary to the committee, Margot Kerley. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for their arduous effort in bringing down this unanimous report. Before I conclude my remarks, I must say that the remarks made earlier by the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean) were particularly inappropriate since the member for La Trobe clearly intends to return to parliament after the next election.16:21:005668Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—by leave—I too hope to return after the next election.QI4PRICEMr Price—No doubt about it.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—We will wait and see. Elections are funny things. I wish to speak on this particular report. As the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), the Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, has said, it is a unanimous report and it is quite a lengthy report. I would like to focus on just a couple of aspects of it. As he said, the issue of the terms of reference was one which the committee had to grapple with, particularly with respect to the last section which reads:. . . including conditions relating to the role of State Auditors-General, with particular reference to recent developments concerning the Victorian Auditor-General.The JCPAA prides itself on always working to the unanimous position as much as possible with respect to its findings. There are some times when that is easier than others, and I guess I would say this is one of those times where there was some difficulty. The nature of that difficulty concerns the question of what we took that particular section of the terms of reference to mean. It did produce some difficulties for the committee. We have certainly taken it to mean that it alludes to the review of the Victorian Audit Act by the Victorian government.That, as I think members know, has been an issue of considerable controversy in the state of Victoria since it was announced and during its conduct and its findings being acted upon by the government of Victoria. It was one of the reasons given by the then member for Mitcham for his resignation, and it is certainly something which has caused a considerable furore amongst the Victorian public because of concerns about what it does to the actions of the Victorian Auditor-General and his ability to actually conduct the duties of his role and position in an independent manner.However, the JCPAA basically came to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, given some of the issues which the chairman mentioned, it was impossible for us to properly conduct an inquiry into that aspect of the reference. We, therefore, took the view that it was best to mention some of the problems with that aspect of the reference but otherwise avoid endeavouring to deal with it. It is quite true that we have not had the capacity, or that we believed we would have the capacity, to be able to conduct hearings and seek evidence on that particular issue. We certainly had legal advice to the effect and, as was mentioned by the chairman, the member for La Trobe, there are some constitutional issues. There is also the fact that, previously, when a response, a written submission, was sought by the Senate Victorian Casino Inquiry Select Committee from the Premier of Victoria, he responded:. . . the State of Victoria is protected by its executive privilege against actions of the Commonwealth which threaten its autonomy or curtail its capacity to function effectively.. . . the State of Victoria will assert its executive privilege if the Committee attempts to obtain evidence from current or former Ministers or Public Servants, either voluntarily or by compulsion of law.I think it is fair to say that it was the view of the committee that this would almost certainly be an issue on which the Victorian government would seek to avoid the question of Commonwealth scrutiny. That is their right, and I do not question the fact that they do have that right, but I do think there are some issues around what occurred in respect of the Audit Act in Victoria. That is something that does require some wider scrutiny, but I also accept that, in the circumstances, the situation is that a federal committee such as ours is not, in fact, able to do so. But I do think that it is an issue which, in terms of the Victorian public and in the operation of good practice amongst auditors across this country, needs to be reviewed on an ongoing basis.I certainly hope that the Victorian government will see the sense of that and actually review the operation of their act over the next couple of years. I think there are some really significant issues about the operation of audit powers within the Victorian jurisdiction, and there are real concerns about what, in fact, is occurring in Victoria under the Kennett government when it comes to the question of the Audit Act.I congratulate members of the committee and the secretariat for dealing with the difficult task of working out a way to avoid a brawl on the terms of reference. We worked together to achieve that. I certainly do not think there is anything in this report that really deals with that issue; that is probably the way it had to be in the circumstances and, constitutionally, it was the way it had to be. But the issues around the question of the Victorian Auditor-General were certainly something that many members of the committee had serious concerns about, although they recognised in the circumstances that we could not, in fact, deal with the issues at hand.5669Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous566916:27:005669Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I 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).This motion before the House addresses four matters. The fourth matter simply relates to the sessional orders being adopted as standing orders in respect of the Main Committee, and I do not need, therefore, to say any more about that. The three other substantive issues relate to standing order 193, standing order 248, and the reasons for disagreeing to further Senate amendments.The amendment to standing order 193 provides that on sitting Mondays any divisions on motions moved by a private member prior to question time or during petitions in the second period of private members' busi ness shall be deferred until after the grievance debate has been concluded or postponed. Under this proposal, divisions arising during petitions and committee and delegation reports would be treated similarly to divisions during private members business under standing order 193 as it currently stands, except that, under the standing order as amended, divisions will also be called on if the grievance debate is postponed.This issue was originally raised by the Clerk of the House and was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure, which I am pleased to say supports the amendment. I thank the chair of the committee, the member for Aston (Mr Nugent) for his advice that the proposed change is, in fact, consistent with the intention of the original 1988 amendment of the standing orders in relation to the deferral of divisions.Standing order 193 was amended in 1998 to provide that any divisions called for on sitting Thursdays before 12.30 be deferred. Under the then routine of business, this period covered private members business, committee and delegation reports and presentations of petitions. The proposed amendment is a sensible proposal that I commend to the House.In respect of standing orders 248 and 258, members will be aware that, where the Senate makes amendments to bills passed by the House, the standing orders require an unnecessarily formalistic and cumbersome process if the House disagrees with the Senate amendments. Standing orders 248 and 258 require that, where any Senate amendments are disagreed to by the House, the House must appoint a committee of three members to draw up reasons for the disagreement. The reasons must then be reported to the House. The committee's reasons, when agreed to by the House, must then be transmitted to the Senate by the message returning the bill.As all members know, this process is purely procedural and adds nothing to the consideration of particular amendments. In fact, the House of Representatives Practice notes, not only in the current third edition but also in the second edition published in 1989, that the process can be somewhat cumbersome and has been subject to some derision. New members have been bemused by this process whereby the House decides to appoint a committee and voila!—the committee meets and immediately produces a very carefully worded statement to represent their views.DT4CREANMr Crean—It is detailed and comprehensive; that's why we disagree.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Exactly. Removing the obsolete requirement for a committee of reasons will not reduce the scope for debate of amendments or the possibility of a compromise between the House and Senate in respect of disputed amendments. The arguments for rejecting particular amendments will still be explained, debated and voted on when the minister moves that the amendments be disagreed to. Ministers will be required to present reasons to the House for disagreeing with amendments. These written reasons will be incorporated into the message to the Senate without time being wasted on procedures which do not add anything to the functioning of parliament. Consistent with the government's practice of reviewing sensible proposals for reforming the standing orders, this issue has been referred to the Procedure Committee for advice. I am pleased to say that the committee supports this proposed amendment.In respect of the other matters I first mentioned, the government proposes that the sessional orders relating to the provision of members' three-minute statements in adjournment debates when the Main Committee meets on Thursdays be adopted as standing orders. They were introduced in December 1997. These orders were seen as an important measure to increase the time and opportunities for members to speak on issues in the parliament. They arose from the report of the Procedure Committee of September 1997 entitled Provision for members to make short speeches in the Main Committee.While the Procedure Committee proposed 90-second member statements in the Main Committee on Thursday mornings, the government considered that three minutes was a more appropriate time limit. I note that the government acted on representations from both government and opposition members in this regard. The sessional orders were proposed to apply for the autumn and winter sittings this year on a trial basis. It seems that the trial has worked pretty well, allowing an additional 40 members to speak during the adjournment debates and 43 members to make three-minute statements so far this year, thereby adding over five hours of debating time to members for these purposes—three hours for adjournment and two hours and 10 minutes for three-minute statements. Given the success of these orders and the general support for these procedures on both sides of the House, the sessional orders should be adopted as standing orders of the House rather than lapse whenever the House is dissolved. I understand, and hope, that the opposition also supports this proposal, as they did the introduction of the measures on a trial basis.That reasonably canvasses the matters currently before the chair in these proposed amendments to standing orders. I commend them all to the House. I conclude my remarks by thanking those who have been associated with making these sensible reforms.DT4CREANMr Crean—Name them.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The member for Aston for one; the people in my office. I will not give you credit because you are known for taking it without invitation, and will probably do so now. The member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) has been a strong supporter for changes to procedures. This government has taken the attitude—DT4CREANMr Crean—I got you a lift up.UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—Thanks very much.DT4CREANMr Crean—He would not have done it otherwise.UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—He did.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I did actually mention the member for Aston earlier. The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) did not listen, which is what the people in Queensland were telling us 10 days ago.UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—Thank you.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why do you have to thank him?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Because you interjected, as usual. We do work to lift the standards of the parliament and the constant interjections of the member for Hotham are evidence again why there is a continuing need to try to improve standards. One way to improve standards is to enhance the opportunities for people to speak. These sessional orders have done that. The other changes streamline processes, thereby making more time for members to address the House on issues which they consider important.This government has given a high priority to improving standards in the House. That is evident from some of the statistics, which demonstrate the extent to which we have changed processes and procedures. For example, during question time we now have many more questions than were ever allowed when Labor was in office. The average length of time for question time in 1996 was 74 minutes; in 1997 it was 74.8 minutes. The average number of questions asked during question time in 1996 was 19.5; in 1997 it was 19.6. This is almost double the number of questions which were allowed when Labor was in office. They are the best numbers since 1976.When Mr Keating was in, he treated the parliament with absolute contempt. In fact, he said that question time was a courtesy extended by the executive to the parliament. The number of questions asked during 1996 was 1,192; in 1997 it was 1,519. This is almost double the number of questions allowed to be asked when Labor was in. In fact, these numbers are the best numbers in over 20 years—the best numbers since 1976.The most number of bills declared urgent was 12 bills in 1997, which is down from the number when Labor was in office—in 1992 they had 132 whipped through the parliament under a declaration of urgency. By any statistic this government has provided opportunities for members to speak and for parliamentary standards to be raised, and the statistics demonstrate it very clearly. Even the fact that we now have question time at 2 o'clock was a change introduced by this government. When Labor was in office, Mr Keating did not like question time being televised, so he arranged for question time to be held at 3 o'clock because he knew the ABC preferred to run Sesame Street instead of the national parliament!8I4MARTINMr Martin—That's right.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—`That's right,' says the member for Cunningham. Then the Speaker of the House, known for coming into this parliament metaphorically with a bruised eye, having done a couple of rounds with Mr Keating—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Never.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Metaphorically.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Not even that.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Keating was the one who said that we had not had a decent Speaker since Billy Snedden. That was when you were the Speaker—and you remember that, don't you?8I4MARTINMr Martin—I don't remember it.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Exactly. We have transformed the arrangements for question time. But for the interjections and irrelevant points of order we constantly have from the Labor Party, we would be doing even better with more precise and succinct question times than we have.UT4NUGENTMr Nugent—And what about the RDOs?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The member for Aston reminds me of the incredible, if not bizarre, practice when Labor was in office that the ministers only had to turn up every second day. They had a rostered day off, so a minister who was under pressure one day did not have to turn up the next. When the idea was introduced, it was on the basis that they would be out talking to the people. But we used to find that on their RDOs, were they out talking with people in the supermarkets and in the highways and byways? No, they would be sitting back in their office watching question time on the monitor, having afternoon tea! We know that because the statistics show that on the days when those ministers were rostered off, when we had a division in the afternoon all of a sudden they would turn up.It is timely to note that the changes that we have made have been to improve parliamentary standards. By looking at the statistics, you can see what a very significant change has been introduced. The fact of the matter is that when Labor were in they treated the parliament with absolute contempt. We intend to go on reminding people that the attitude of the previous Labor government was such that on many occasions people failed to have the opportunity to raise issues that should have been raised.One of the reasons that people have been turning away from the major political parties is that for 13 years, if you had a different point of view from the Labor government's, you were just wiped. The rise of Pauline Hanson's party or David Oldfield's party or David Ettridge's party—DT4CREANMr Crean—The three owners.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The three owners. One of them is on a 12 per cent take; whichever one is running it. The rise of that party is a reflection that a lot of people felt disenfranchised by the political process. The reason for that was that the previous Labor government dismissed the genuine concerns of many Australians. Even today, as question time got under way, was the Labor Party asking questions about unemployment and the things that really concern people? No, they were not, because they still fail to focus on the genuinely significant issues for the vast bulk of the Australian population.I will cut short my time as I have had the opportunity to put what needs to be put on the public record. I dare say we will get the usual diatribe from the member for Hotham, who will be unable and incapable of addressing himself to the motion before the chair. I will wait five minutes to see if he says anything of substance. If he does not, I will get back to the office for afternoon tea.I know that he will support these amendments. When we came into office, we took all the Procedure Committee reports that had been shelved and were sitting, collecting dust, and we said to the committee, `Go back over every report which was shelved by the Labor Party, update them all, bring us back a set of recommendations and we will actually respond to the recommendations.' We did that, we brought in a swathe of new reforms as soon as we were elected and today's matters, whilst not as bold as some of the other parlia mentary reforms that we have introduced, are still important in themselves. They reflect the fact that, as a government, where there are good ideas to improve the procedures in the House we willingly accept them. Unlike under Labor, they do not gather dust; we get on and make things happen. I commend this motion to the House.16:43:005673Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We do support the standing and sessional orders proposals that have come forward. The Leader of the House (Mr Reith) could not help himself and did divert and became so patronising, as usual. Understand that this is the guy who is saying he is lifting standards but, instead of staying in here to listen to the response, he has got better things to do: go and have a cup of tea. He is still chasing the votes. He has lost so heavily in the waterfront dispute—P1 has caught so far up; the old P2 is miles behind—so he is back to afternoon teas and counting the votes—8I4MARTINMr Martin—With the backbenchers.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—With the backbenchers. He has two of them in here today: one of them will not be back, the other may not be. This is the Leader of the House; how patronising!Not only do we have the patronising image in this place, we have the public persona of a minister who just cannot be believed. When he was talking during the waterfront dispute about how he knew nothing about the decision by Patrick's to sack its work force and replace it with another—and this was back in April—only 10 per cent of the Australian public believed him. I think that has plummeted to probably 0.01 per cent after his performance in the last couple of days. He is a minister who cannot be believed, a person who just patronises and knows no other way. The propositions that are before us do make sense, and we support them.WI4REITHMr Reith—Will you congratulate the government for introducing them?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I do indicate that in relation to one of them, the statement of reasons, the government had to be goaded into supporting the position that they now adopt because of pressure from the opposition. We heard the Leader of the House talk about standing orders 248 and 258, which remove the fiction of the appointment of a committee of reasons to provide reasons for the House disagreeing with Senate amendments. We think it is a fiction that the resolution is that the committee be appointed and, within seconds, the committee is reporting. So we do not have a problem with getting rid of the fiction. Our complaint was that we never got any reasons. It was not the fiction of the committee, it was the fact that the Leader of the House, who is at the table, could not be bothered giving reasons as to why the government was prepared to disagree with the motions that came back from the Senate.Do you know what this government wanted to do? Not only did it want to knock off the fiction, but it also wanted to knock off the requirement to give reasons. And here he is preaching accountability. Here are motions coming back from the Senate that require earnest attention by a government claiming to be accountable and claiming to be representative of the people who elected it, but it does not want to be put in a position where it has to give reasons. This is not purely procedural; this comes back to the requirement for the government to give reasons. It wanted to avoid doing that and it was only under pressure from the Labor Party that we now have that position.As for the sessional orders becoming standing orders, we agree with that. The proposals that were put in as sessional orders and trialled were effectively implemented in the Main Committee. Most of these deal with the Main Committee so we do not have a problem, following that, in having them become standing orders. The decision in relation to standing order 193 makes sense in terms of deferral of divisions to make sure that it is not only private members business to which the deferral applies but also committee and government reports, the presentation of petitions and members' 90-second statements.These things will streamline the activities of the parliament, but we have to say that it is wasted on this government. It is a government that wants to streamline procedures but cannot actually get any business of substance into this House in the last sitting fortnight. Here we are languishing around because this government cannot organise any legislation of note to bring forward. Here we are noting papers, debating on sessional orders and all of those sorts of things—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. These comments are irrelevant to the matter before the House and, furthermore, they misrepresent the position on the programming. The reason that people have an opportunity to speak on these matters is because private members have asked to be able to speak on them.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Hotham will remain relevant to the motion before the House.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—On that point of order, I would just draw your attention to what the Leader of the House was departing from the motion before the House on. He was talking about how they had increased the number of questions in the parliament, how they had raised parliamentary standards, how they got rid of the RDOs—and he wants to take me on a point of order? You have got to be joking. What hypocrisy!Here we have a government, this week and last week, struggling to get business before the parliament. Contrast that with the previous fortnight, where everything was urgent. It had something like 31 bills it had to get through, and it put a requirement on us that we had to get through 21 of those bills in 27 hours of debate. Just imagine that. This is a government that says, `This is the people's House. We want more debate. We want greater accountability'—but it wants to ram these pieces of legislation through, and now it has not got enough business to keep itself going. My point is that there are important pieces of legislation that this government promised to bring forward but has not, and why aren't they before the House this week? Take, for example, the legislation freezing the car tariffs and the legislation that replaces the export scheme for the car industry. Both of those were agreements that this government entered into more than 12 months ago. It promised to introduce legislation before this parliament rose, and it has not done it. And this could well be the last week that the parliament sits. The case with textiles is similar.He has to go for his cup of tea now. Let everyone note that the minister has more important things to do—like having a cup of tea—than hearing about his hopeless mismanagement of this parliament and the fact that they are not prepared to honour promises they made to the Australian public and to industry.WI4REITHMr Reith—What?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You said that you would have legislation before this parliament on the car tariff freeze. It is not here. You said that you would have legislation before this parliament on the textile, clothing and footwear tariff freeze. You have not done it. The minister said that they would soon have legislation to address the negative assistance for the book publishing industry. It is not here. We had a government saying that it was prepared, if it had time, to introduce—in relation to the anti-dumping legislation—the correction of China being treated as a market economy. There is no legislation. Why can't it have that legislation before the parliament? It cannot be a lack of drafting capacity. It cannot be that there is no time. These things have been on the record for ages.On the question of time, do we remember how much time it took them to get the stevedoring levy bill before the House? Patrick's, backed by this government, sacked its whole work force at 11 o'clock on Tuesday night and, on Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock, this government had special legislation in the parliament, backing the sackings. Some coincidence! This was complicated legislation. This is a government that gave priority to sacking workers, not protecting workers' jobs in the car and textile industries. This is a government that was prepared to draft legislation overnight to sack workers. We saw images of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business slapping each other on the back, congratulating each other for this great piece of legislation that backs the sacking of workers and backs arrangements whereby Patrick's can strip the assets of its company and put the employment contracts in the hands of shell companies—a $300 million asset company which left $52,000 in the labour hire accounts to pay 2,000 workers. And this government backed them. This government allowed that legislation through.Worse, when they had the Corporations Law before the House, which we amended, and which the Senate agreed with us on, to ensure that that Patrick's scam, the Corrigan scam, could not happen again, who stuck their hands up in support of protecting workers' security? Labor did. Who opposed it? The coalition did. The coalition are prepared to have lie on the statute books legislation that will enable what was done with Patrick's to be done again. Yet they go around the country talking about the need for security of the work force. What a sham. What hypocrisy. What cant. Why haven't we got the legislation before this parliament that would actually put some protective support under thousands of workers in this country, under those employed in the automotive industry, those employed in the textile, clothing and footwear industry and those employed in the book publishing industry? There are people whose jobs are threatened by dumped product coming in from countries which are now even more inclined to dump because of the Asian economic crisis. For example, there are the people in the paper making industry. People are threatened by cheap products being dumped here, putting our workers at risk. We have already seen the first instalment of that, quite frankly, with Burnie closing its pulp mill because this government failed to lift its hand.What we see here, therefore, is a government that waxes lyrical about streamlining the parliament, making it more accountable, but whose actions say, `Don't talk to us about bringing legislation into the place. Don't get us on any serious business. We will streamline it so much that we don't have to do anything.' On this issue of the government now handling more questions than we did, they might get more questions but the trouble is that we do not get any answers. Who has been the greatest obfuscator of the lot: the minister for industrial relations, who has just left to have his cup of tea. Did you ever hear him answer a straight question on his involvement in the Dubai affair; on his state of knowledge of Patrick's decision to sack its entire work force and replace it with another; or on his involvement with the Prime Minister, backed by a departmental minute that recommended, step by step, the very consequences of what took place on the Melbourne wharf and led to the wholesale sacking of the totality of the Patrick's work force? Here we had the shifty minister saying he knew nothing about the Dubai incident but refusing to answer about his state of knowledge of other plans.On 8 May this year he went public and said he had no knowledge about any plans by Patrick's, and neither did anyone in the government. The trouble is that we caught him out. We caught him out with a document that was presented in this parliament, which the government refused to accept being tabled. So much, again, for accountability. The document demonstrated that, as far back as 14 April last year, this government—including the Prime Minister, including the minister for workplace relations, including the former minister for transport, John Sharp—were up to their necks not just in backing the Patrick strategy but in being asked to be involved as participants in engineering a wholesale dispute on the waterfront. There was external activity to ensure we got a close-down of the waterfront. Of course, the minister tries to put out that when we were in government we looked at such things as deregistration and the like. The fact of the matter is that we did not seriously consider those things. They might have come by way of recommendations but they were dismissed by us, and the recommendations came only after a dispute had occurred. On the other hand, this is a government that has been complicit in engineering the very activities that led to the dispute and that has been prepared to back illegal actions involving itself in a conspiracy.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hotham will get back directly to the motion.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I go to the final point that the Leader of the House made, and that is his joke about lifting parliamentary standards, as supposedly shown by the statistics. I will tell you the statistics: it is seven ministers gone because they have breached the Prime Minister's code of conduct.QI4PRICEMr Price—Two that should have gone.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Two more that should have, and a Speaker that has gone because he could no longer rely on the confidence of his Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who said that he wanted to have an independent Speaker in the House. They were his unctuous words before the election, but he never intended to put them into practice. This was another one of his non-core promises gone missing. The statistics are there: seven ministers gone because they breached the code of conduct, two more that should have gone, a Speaker gone and a Prime Minister who is rattled, a Prime Minister for whom the knives are out. There is only one person who is a serious contender now, because the minister for industrial relations has done himself irreparable damage. (Time expired)16:58:005676Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to make a couple of observations on the proposed changes to the standing orders. Firstly, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have consulted some authorities about the changes to do with amendments of the Senate. I certainly support the abolition of the committee of reasons. But let us imagine that, just as in Queensland, one day this House may have a minority government. Under the proposed procedures, how will the amendments and the list of reasons be synchronised should the government of the day propose some amendments, one or a number of which do not carry a majority? How then is the list of reasons going to be so adjusted as to reflect the will of the House? Some people may say, `Look, you are being fanciful. This is not a situation currently enjoyed, and we are used to dealing with the tyranny of numbers by a government.' I just say that in looking at these standing orders we should ensure as much as possible that we cover every particular contingency.I wanted particularly to talk about members' statements. It is a pity the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) is not here. I did thank him for picking up my suggestion of three-minute constituency statements. This was implemented by him by allowing three per side per week. At the time he said it was a trial and that he would look at the original suggestion, not that there be three per side per week—that is, a total of six—but that there be 20 per side per week, which is 40 opportunities. I am disappointed that in looking at the trial—and I think these three-minute statements have proved to be quite successful—neither the Procedure Committee apparently, in its advice to the Leader of the House, nor the leader himself has taken the opportunity to increase the number of opportunities ordinary members of parliament have to talk about their electorates. After all, isn't this what you are elected for? What is so offensive about increasing by 34 the number of times a member can get up in the Main Committee and talk about his or her electorate?I think that, when we start to consider the procedures of this place, we should note that the people of Australia are running a tougher slide rule over our operations. I am sure it would be difficult to explain that we can say we are improving opportunities for members to speak in the House but we do not want to go to 20 a side, that we think 20 a side per week is too many and that members somehow can talk too long about issues of importance in their electorate. I think that is regrettable. I say sincerely to those members on both sides of the House that I hope we will have an opportunity, perhaps not in this parliament but in the next one, to revisit that position.In talking about higher standards in this place, I put a couple of notices of motion on the Notice Paper, and I will have to put them back on. We have never had an opportunity to debate why this parliament should not have a staffing and appropriations committee. You might ask what is so important about this. Let me say that in this era of so-called budget honesty, accountability and transparency, the Department of the House of Representatives is the only department whose expenditure is not scrutinised by the parliament. How the clerk and his staff can rejoice in this contradiction I do not know.If there are some very sound reasons, other than wanting to exploit the tyranny of numbers or the excesses of executive power, that the government may have about objecting to such scrutiny, I do not know. But I can tell you that it was a Liberal senator, back in the 1970s, who proposed staffing and appropriations committees both for the Senate, which have them, and the House of Representatives, which do not. I can advance one reason for the reluctance of the executive to have a staffing and appropriations committee and that is, of course, that Presiding Officers have always been able to bury their expenditure in the Department of the House of Representatives. If that was acceptable—and I am not sure it was—in the past, I do not think it is now.As for question time, it is true that more questions are being asked, but you have to ask: are the people who are actually watching question time really impressed with its whole operation? You can repeat ad nauseam that you will never get rid of the confrontationist nature of question time, and I accept that. Again, I want to say that I put on the Notice Paper—and the government has never debated the issue—that we should have time limits on those asking questions and, indeed, ministers answering questions.As the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) will know, the Speaker has difficulty in applying the rules of relevance to ministerial answers. I have to say that I think ordinary people in Australia are expecting much more of their parliament. Whilst we might not see time limits and a more appropriate application of the standing order on relevance in this parliament, I certainly hope we will see it in a future parliament.It is interesting that the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Crean) mentioned the demise of Speaker Halverson. One of the great sins of Speaker Halverson was to introduce the practice of allowing, occasionally, the opposition to ask supplementary questions. How outrageous! It was one of the reasons why he fell. Could ministers not handle a supplementary question?PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That sums it up.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—That may be the case. Was it their inability to handle supplementary questions or the indignity of it all?HE4ANDREWMr Andrew—Ask Speaker Martin.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—The Chief Government Whip intervenes. I think the point he is missing is that more and more Australians, from time to time, tune into question time and they do not like what they see. Governments can continue to mouth on about higher standards, but it is inconsistent with the perception that members of the public have about question time. If we want to debate these changes in a government-opposition manner, so be it, but I actually think that for the institution of parliament we are going to have to arrive at a greater consensus about how matters should be debated in this place.We saw in question time today that one of the real difficulties is the way standing orders bottle up private members' bills. I have not put anything on the Notice Paper, but I do think it is ludicrous that we are not utilising the innovation of the Main Committee, which was a Labor innovation, to debate private members' bills. Whether you want to force a division about whether there should be a division or just let the debate expire as occurs with the MPIs is another issue. That private members have such limited opportunity to present the bill and explain the bill—and not see it debated—I think is really unfortunate. I certainly hope we see a change there.I know the honourable member for Aston (Mr Nugent) is in the chamber. He has brought down a report reviewing the first 10 years of the House of Representatives committees. I was a little disappointed in that report in the sense that it did not really chart the way ahead. There was some elimination of committees, but the parliamentary committees are, I think, such a vital artery to this place, connecting ordinary citizens, that they need to be developed and nurtured.It is a matter of regret that the very first thing this government did in coming to government was to hack parliamentary com mittees. Committees, notwithstanding the very fine membership by members of the House of Representatives, depend on their secretariats to a very large degree. The extent to which we limit resources to parliamentary committees reduces their effectiveness. I would be most grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services, the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth), at the table, could elucidate the issues I have raised in relation to the new proposed standing order 248 and standing order 258. From my perspective—and I am very proud to be a Labor member of this House—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Hear, hear! And a great member.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Thank you, you have got me blushing. Like a lot of my colleagues—and I guess this is true on both sides of the House—I care very much about this institution and the way in which we need to change and adapt it so it continues to serve its primary purpose—that is, serving the men and women of Australia.17:10:005678Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I came into the chamber in preparation for the debate that is to follow this matter, but I really cannot allow some of the comments that have gone before not to be responded to. Specifically, as some of them were put in the form of a question, I think they deserve to be responded to as well. As the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, I have more than a passing interest.In answer to the question of what happens in the context of a minority government, as opposed to a majority government, to the reasons that are going back to the Senate, I think that is well worth consideration. I have to say that it is not one that I have personally turned my attention to and I do not think my committee has either, but the point I make very strongly is that it seems to me that the amendments we are talking about here today do not change that situation.What we are talking about in terms of the Committee of Reasons is that the present procedure is nonsensical in that we instantly appoint members A, B and C as a committee and straightaway we read out their report. The reality of life is that the members themselves do not even know what is in the report before it is read most of the time. It is a device. Both the previous government for 13 years as well as our government have gone along with that, and we all accept that it is a nonsense. So all this procedure is trying to do is acknowledge that nonsense and say, `Yes, we will indeed give the Senate reasons why we do not agree, but on the other hand we are going to do it in a commonsense, rational way.' What happens when there is a minority government seems to me to be an issue to be addressed and something which we can take on board, but I do not think it actually changes the substance of what we are talking about today.I turn now to the question about the limit on the number of speakers in the Main Committee. I must admit I was distracted for a while and I did not hear every comment made. It seems to me that we need to understand that, obviously, there is finite time. We have tried under this government to increase the speaking opportunities for private members, and that has been achieved. I think that is a fair thing to have done. There is no reason why there should not be the opportunity to look at increasing that further in the future. I am sure that we can take those sorts of requests on board. But we have increased the number of opportunities quite significantly, and I think that needs to be acknowledged.I have to say to the gentleman from Chifley (Mr Price) that I find totally unacceptable his comment about supplementary questions. In your 13 years in government none of your Speakers, including the former Speaker who is at the table, took supplementary questions—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Once I did—Michael Wooldridge.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—I say to former Speaker Martin that in all the years I sat on that side of the chamber when he was in the chair—and I was a young and enthusiastic person when he was the Speaker and I used to pay assiduous attention—I do not recall that. But if you say you did once I will accept your word as a former Speaker and a gentleman. But once in 13 years. To then complain about what has happened subsequently is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.I would also like to talk about the gentleman from Chifley's comments about having a committee to scrutinise the operations of the parliament. I think he called it a staffing and appropriations committee or some such instrument.QI4PRICEMr Price—The expenditure.UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—Expenditure, staffing and appropriations—whatever the name may be. That committee is to scrutinise, as I understand it, the operations of the parliament. Superficially, that may have some attractions, but I draw the attention of the gentleman from Chifley to the report that my committee undertook within the last few months that he himself referred to—the review of the committee system. I do not recall—and I stand to be corrected—that he or anybody else made a suggestion in a submission to that review of this place's committee system.QI4PRICEMr Price—It was on the Notice Paper . Don't you read the Notice Paper ? Didn't you listen to what I said? It was on the Notice Paper .UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—What I am saying is that we had a review of the committee system in this parliament. We asked every single member to make suggestions for improving the committee system in this place.QI4PRICEMr Price—Don't start attacking me. It was on the Notice Paper , as was members' statements, which your committee rejected, you hypocrite!UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—We did not reject that; the suggestion was not made. You did not make a submission to the committee along those lines at all.QI4PRICEMr Price—It was on the Notice Paper . Don't you read the Notice Paper ?UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—We asked for submissions and you did not make a submission in that connection. That is the reality. We are not going to go trawling through all the notice papers. We asked members for sensible, reasonable submissions, and we did not get a submission of that nature. To stand up now, after the event, and say, `Oh, you should have done it,' when within the last three months you had an ample opportunity to put that suggestion forward seems to me to be pretty unreasonable, quite frankly. The committee report will be debated later tonight. I would suggest that the appropriate place for you to test your ideas is on the floor of this place when it is the appropriate time.17:16:005680Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Do you claim to have been misrepresented?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I do. The honourable member for Aston (Mr Nugent) is suggesting that I have taken no interest in the affairs of the Standing Committee on Procedure. That is not true. Yes, his claim that I did not put in a submission is true, but I went one step further, for the chairman of the Procedure Committee, and that was to actually have prepared the requisite standing order, which appeared on the Notice Paper . So, if the member for Aston is saying that I never gave the committee a chance, he is suggesting that he does not read the Notice Paper .Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5680r5075680Debate resumed from 25 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.17:17:005680Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—We are again debating the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. I have already made some remarks. It is and, I must say, it remains an injustice that people can be prevented from working, from studying and from doing the everyday things of life such as shopping and going to the library simply because they have a disability.In 1992 the Labor government established the Disability Discrimination Act. That act was about providing people with disabilities with a legal avenue of redress for discrimination against them on the basis of their disability. We introduced the separate position of Disability Discrimination Commissioner to make sure that the Disability Discrimination Act delivered real changes to people's lives in these areas. What we needed then and what we need now is national leadership. I am very sorry to say, particularly on behalf of people with disabilities in this country, that we are not getting national leadership from the Howard government. We will no longer be able to get it from the Disability Discrimination Commissioner either, because there will not be one.One of the most important things about the disability discrimination agenda is the standards. The Disability Discrimination Act provided a foundation for standards in a range of areas—employment, education, the built-in environment, communications and transport—so that we could change the environment around us to give people with disabilities a fair go. The standards were a very big step forward. They introduced a process based on negotiation and conciliation. They lifted the focus on individuals with disabilities and put the focus on the environment. The focus was on the fact that disabilities can become a barrier to participation only if our environment is inadequate.Now all that has changed. People with disabilities face a very different environment. They face a government which is no longer prepared to provide national leadership for reform. This is a government which does not seem to understand that providing access for people with disabilities actually benefits the whole community. Let us take the example of accessible transport. A simple thing like providing a ramp for bus access can make the world of difference not only for a person in a wheelchair but also for the mother with a pram or an elderly person with a walking frame. As our population ages, we need to think about how to make transport more accessible. This bill sees the Howard government walking away from this agenda. This government is turning its back on the five years in which people with disabilities were able to make real gains.There is also the issue of cost. It is a major issue because the government has changed the way that complaints will be funded under the act. Under the current system, a person with a disability can pursue a complaint with the commission at no cost. The two parties can sit down and, with the help of the commission, try to work out a solution. In the process, people start to understand the challenges faced by people with disabilities. But now, if people want to proceed with their complaint, they have to take it to the Federal Court. If they lose the case, they will of course be liable for costs. People with disabilities will have to pay legal fees and much more if they lose their case. I am sure that honourable members can understand the effect that this will have on people with disabilities.Disability groups around Australia are most concerned about these changes. They are saying that people will not pursue complaints because they are terrified about the costs. We must remember that most people with disabilities are on low incomes because of their disability. I want to read to the House part of a note that I received from the Physical Disability Council of Australia about the result of the changes that we are debating. They said:This means that people with disabilities will almost always commence an action with no real idea of the chance of success. A person losing a case against a `big spending corporation' could face bankruptcy. People with disabilities believe this is too high a risk for the potential gain—access to a theatre, access to a bus system, employment discrimination and so on.That is from the Physical Disability Council of Australia. They said:What good is a Disability Discrimination Act if people cannot afford to use it? What good are disability standards if the current substandard access for people with disabilities is rarely challenged?Another significant aspect of the bill before us is that it aims to shift the focus away from intervention in particular cases and toward the provision of education and the raising of public awareness of discrimination issues. It does this in two distinct ways. First, it re-orders the primary functions of the commission to emphasise its educative role. Secondly, it reduces the commission's powers in respect of individual cases by requiring it to obtain the permission of the Attorney-General before seeking to intervene in court proceed ings and by removing its power to recommend the payment of damages in discrimination cases.I certainly do not wish to downplay the importance of public education in this context. Of course, it has a vital role to play. However, it must not be forgotten that individual cases play a very important part in raising public awareness. Such cases are often widely publicised and can send a clear message that unlawful discrimination will not be tolerated. One case that is often referred to is the case of Cox v. Queensland state government. In this case a person with a physical disability successfully challenged the building of the convention centre in South Bank in Brisbane city because there was no access through the front door. As surprising as this may sound—a major entertainment complex with no thought to wheelchair access—it happened. And it still happens. The person who challenged the building was successful. The Queensland state government had to install a lift and the case received a lot of attention.This demonstrates the power of the current approach. It sends a very strong message to all governments and all businesses that they need to be constantly thinking about people with disabilities and how they will fare in using services or getting into buildings. It is the kind of constant reminder that governments of all political persuasions and at all levels, and all businesses also, need. We all need this constant reminder about the problems that people with disabilities face in either getting access to services or getting into buildings.Labor opposes this bill and we feel particularly strongly about the attack on the Disability Discrimination Commissioner. We will not walk away from the Disability Discrimination Act. There is an enormous amount more to be done to make sure that people with disabilities get access to services, to the built environment, to the ordinary things of life that all of us take for granted. Our platform commits a future Labor government to retaining or, if this government is successful, putting back the Disability Discrimination Commissioner and to continuing the implementation of the standards that we were so proud to put in place.Social justice for people with disabilities is an aspiration that Labor fundamentally believes in. It is a Labor value. It is something we will continue to fight for and we will certainly oppose the whittling away of the avenues that people with disabilities have had to date that this government seems so intent on doing.17:27:005682Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I chair the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and so I take a particular interest in matters concerned with human rights. Of course, over the years Australia has put in place a human rights structure that is frequently held up as a role model for others to emulate. Human rights matters command a major place in the life and the attention of this nation, and in the media of this nation. They are even a key plank in our foreign affairs policy. Human rights legislation has been built over quite a long time and covers a very wide range of areas. Yet there is always some questioning as to whether we are doing it right, and whether there are better ways of doing it or whether we should change whatever is already in place in respect of human rights activity.One thing that disappoints me sometimes is that if you try to change something to make it a bit better there seems to be a lot of questioning as to what your motives are. It seems that if you want to change something you must, by definition, as sometimes those on the other side will say, be acting on base motives. There is no acknowledgment that changing things might enable you to deliver a better result. It seems to me that in this place we should always be looking for better ways of doing things.One of the important building blocks, in terms of human rights in this country, and human rights delivery and human rights protection, whether it is in disabilities, as the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) was talking about, or in the whole range of other areas of human rights activity, is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This bill is all about making some changes to HREOC. Given that this particular debate was started last week and was adjourned until a few minutes ago when the member for Jagajaga continued her remarks, it would be helpful perhaps to remind the House what this bill is going to do, as opposed to some of the somewhat wild ideas that have been floated from members of the opposition during the debate.The bill is going to rename the commission as the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission to better reflect the commission's function of educating all Australians about their responsibility to respect each other's human rights. The new commission's structure will consist of a president and three deputy presidents, each of whom will have responsibility for particular subject areas. One deputy president will be responsible for human rights and disability, one will be responsible for social justice and race and one will be responsible for sex discrimination and equal opportunity. Therefore, it is actually not true to say, for example, as the member for Jagajaga did, that there is no interest in the disability area.The bill provides for the functions performed by the current Privacy Commissioner to be separated from the commission and for a statutory office of the Privacy Commissioner to be created. The bill provides for the refocusing of the commission's functions in order to give greater priority to education, dissemination of information on human rights and assistance to business and the general community. The bill will make the commission's power to intervene in court proceedings which raise human rights issues conditional upon it first obtaining the Attorney-General's approval. The bill provides for the abolition of the Community Relations Council, which has never been actually established, and the abolition of the National Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, which has only produced one report since it was first established.The new commission will not retain the current power of the Human Rights Commissioner to make non-binding recommendations in reports to the Attorney-General for the payment of damages or compensation following inquiries into complaints of breaches of human rights under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. Unlike complaints under the three anti-discrimination acts, these particular complaints do not deal with conduct which is alleged to be unlawful.When governments make changes to legislation, there are those who will always impugn some base motive. There will be agreement on some aspects of what we are proposing and disagreement on others. Certainly a lot of people just suspect any change that is undertaken. There are pros and cons, I would suggest, to a number of aspects of the changes that we are making. I must admit that I had some reservations, for example, in not having special commissioners to look after each individual area, as has hitherto been the case. But it seems to me that we should always be prepared to look at new ways of doing things. If you get somebody who specialises only in a narrow area, certainly you get the benefit of particular expertise. But, equally, if you have somebody who takes a somewhat broader view, then they can often bring attitudes, views, knowledge and expertise from outside that limited area that might be beneficial, and it is worth having a look at and perhaps trialling that sort of approach.We are asked sometimes whether there is a hidden agenda of the government backing away from human rights. I do not believe that is the case. I believe the government is certainly looking at doing things differently, but just because we want to do them differently does not mean to say that we are backing away. There is certainly a change of emphasis, and we are looking particularly to put more emphasis on the education side. There is also the introduction of responsibilities—something that will strike a chord with many in the community. Nothing should be cast in tablets of stone. We need to respond to community concerns, be prepared to make some changes, and to respond to changed circumstances. I am not sure how some of the changes will work out, but I think we should be prepared to give them a go.But quite apart from the structures—and that is what this legislation is all about—it would seem to me that often human rights advocacy and the effectiveness of human rights advocacy are not always about structures; they are often about the people and the attitudes in the community that they respond to. This country has produced some outstanding people in the field of human rights—people who have set a fine example in this country as well as overseas. I am talking about people such as Sir Ronald Wilson, who is a previous president of the HREOC. He produced the stolen children report and was the Deputy Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in its first three years—a council on which I had the honour to serve for about six years, including Sir Ronald's three years.I am also talking about people such as Chris Sidoti, who is still at HREOC. He has sometimes been critical of the government and, frankly, I think that is not always a bad thing. If somebody comes up with reasoned argument or evidence and criticises some of the things that governments do, whether it is this government, the previous government or the next government, there should be a place in our society for them, for independent bodies, to do so. Chris has certainly done that sometimes. One example was when he criticised the detention for far too long of illegal migrants by the department of immigration.Chris Sidoti and HREOC have been very important in enforcing and supporting human rights not only in this country but also overseas. We, as a country, do a lot of work in the region in the human rights area. The Australian government has funded regional human rights bodies and HREOC provides much of the expertise to support those human rights bodies in the region. The restructuring will, I assume, mean that the present appointments will be terminated and new appointments made. I would certainly hope that Chris Sidoti—who I think is an outstanding Australian and an outstanding worker in the human rights field—is retained in a future role in HREOC.Human rights activity must be an ongoing evolutionary process, and this is part of that ongoing change that is inevitable. Other initiatives have also been undertaken by the government. One of the things, for example, that this government has undertaken—a new initiative, which I think is to its credit—in the human rights area is the creation of the Centre for Democratic Institutions, an important Australian government initiative aimed at promoting democracy, human rights and effective governance in developing countries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. The establishment of the centre fulfils a promise that we made at the last election to assist developing countries to strengthen democracy and provide effective governance. Governance is now one of the five priority sectors for the aid program. Only last week it was announced that the new director of the CDI was Mr Roland Rich. He is a long-serving and outstanding member of the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and I am sure that he will carry out his duties diligently and in an outstanding manner. I, and I am sure all the other members of this House, wish him every success in that future appointment.This government in many ways will continue the human rights policies that have been in place for a long time. But we also will institute a number of new initiatives—initiatives with both human rights in this country and human rights overseas. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), for example, only this afternoon in question time was talking about his upcoming trip to Indonesia. Part of our government's activity will be through our activity overseas. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made it clear that he will be raising with the Indonesian government a whole raft of issues in terms of human rights type activities. Whether it be democracy or military suppression in East Timor or brutality in the recent civil disturbances in Indonesia, those are the sorts of things which we have a proud record of pursuing at all levels overseas, and we will continue to do so.SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—What about the poor Australian journalists?UT4Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENT—The gentleman from Dickson interjects, `What about the Australian journalists?' The reality of life is that only yesterday we had a motion in this place, on which I spoke, about the Australian journalists. We are pressing, and the government has pressed, the Indonesian government and its new President, President Habibie, to open a new inquiry into the deaths of those Australian journalists. In fact, the Indonesian Minister for Justice has indicated that he is prepared to look at new evidence and, potentially, have a new inquiry into the deaths of those Australian journalists.This government has been active, as was the previous government, in encouraging Indonesia to go down the particular track of having that new inquiry. I think the important thing at the moment is that, with the change of government in Indonesia, with its new President and new regime, we are seeing a fresh willingness to look at some of those issues and to take a different approach to the one that was taken under the former President of Indonesia. Therefore, it is important that this government, if you like, strikes while the iron is hot and pursues those matters. Those are matters which the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said he will be pursuing during his visit to Indonesia in the next few days—specifically, to look into having a new inquiry into the deaths of those journalists, to look at the problems in East Timor and to look at the issue of human rights as they apply across the board in Indonesia.There are a whole raft of other issues that the government needs to pursue in connection with its foreign affairs policy and the issue of human rights, whether child labour in places like Pakistan and India, forced sterilisation of women in China, political issues in Burma and so on. We need to take a very hard look at a whole range of those areas, and we need to look at the manner in which we go about our diplomacy in those areas.In closing, I would just say that this government is active in the human rights area. This government is aware of concerns and the need to look constantly at how we might approach these issues more effectively. This government does adopt a slightly different approach to that adopted by the former government. This government from time to time will change things and, where it thinks appropriate, it will not be intimidated into not doing so.This bill makes changes to HREOC which will now become the HRRC—and I am not sure what the mnemonic for that will be. Time will tell if the changes are to be effective, but certainly I believe we need to keep an ongoing watching brief to see whether or not those changes are effective. We need to monitor that situation, but we do need to give the changes a chance to succeed. I commend the bill to the House.17:41:005685Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—The previous speaker, the member for Aston (Mr Nugent), spoke at length on international human rights, and they are very important. He did not speak much about the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 and its purposes and what has been happening to human rights under the Howard government.Unfortunately, this bill is about the emasculation of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The commission has been attacked, its budget has been cut and now we have this so-called restructuring of the commission in order to cover up what the Howard government has done in the area of human rights.There are two aspects to this. The first aspect concerns there having been a very significant reduction in expenditure in this area. The second aspect, which is equally unacceptable, is that the government wanted to get rid of certain individuals who were acting as commissioners or not reappoint some commissioners, and so it decided to restructure the commission and get rid of those commissioners.In the initial phase, in the initial proposals from the government, there were to be no specific commissioners at all; we were to end up with having no specifically oriented commissioners. Because of public protest about this proposal, the government has now made some concessions and there will be three deputy presidents with specific expertise in certain areas. That is an improvement on what was previously proposed. But, nevertheless, what the government has been trying, and continues, to do with the general structure in this area of human rights is still unacceptable.It is all very well for the member for Aston to come in here and talk about how we need to do more in the area of international human rights—and I agree with him; I think that Australia does need to do more in the area of international human rights—but also we need to look at our own human rights record and we need to do more to ensure that human rights are protected in this country.One of the most unacceptable things about this legislation is the way in which it abolishes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. That commissioner has played a very important role in trying to ensure that people of indigenous background achieve social justice and that discrimination against those people which takes a variety of forms—both subtle and not so subtle—is not present in Australia. That was the intention in having the Social Justice Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. That position has been abolished and replaced with another which will take a broader role in racial discrimination.This broader role, in a sense, is one example of responding to phenomena such as One Nation when attacks are made against Aboriginal people by saying, `Let's get rid of specific services and specific provisions that help and assist our indigenous people.' I have to say that we are very unhappy about that. We do not believe the government has given any real explanation for the actions it took in this area. There are other areas which the government has cut back—for example, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. That was up in the air for quite some time. Again, the government has been confused. It has sent out confused signals about what it intends to do in terms of the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. But I think that at least we now have some progress in that the government has recognised that there is a need for some specific responsibilities for the new commissioners. I guess one has to be thankful for small mercies, given what they originally intended to do, which was to get rid of all the specific commissioners. I do want to record my protest in particular about what they did in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.The reality is that in this country we have very many forms of discrimination against people. We have discrimination against people on the basis of their race, on the basis of their cultural background, on the basis of their sex and on the basis of their disability. Although we have made progress as a society, we also have dark forces in our community that seek to turn back the clock and entrench discrimination. One way to overcome discrimination is to have a proper access and equity program; a program that guarantees access and equity, especially in the provision of government services. I have a lot to say on this matter because, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, I was directly responsible for the access and equity program for people of migrant background and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.We put into place a whole series of programs to ensure that access and equity took place. This was done through the Office of Multicultural Affairs, and about 50 per cent of the work of the Office of Multicultural Affairs was concerned with ensuring that the access and equity program was implemented. I can tell you that implementation of a program such as access and equity, which is intended to ensure that discrimination does not take place, especially in the Public Service—whether it is the federal or state public services—is not an easy matter. Indeed, Prime Minister Keating requested me in 1994 to carry out consultations in relation to discrimination against ethnic, or non-English speaking background, people. I carried out what were called multicultural consultations throughout Australia in 1994.At that time what did we discover? We discovered that, notwithstanding the fact that we had had an access and equity program for about 10 years in this country, we still had significant aspects of government programs which were not being delivered on the basis of equal access and equity. We had discrimination within the Public Service, and we had discrimination in the delivery of programs to people of ethnic background or Aboriginal background. I am sure that there was also discrimination in the delivery of programs to women. So what does the Howard government do when it takes office? It abolishes the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Therefore, the whole access and equity program, including the whole issue of the responsibility of departments to report on their achievements in access and equity, is abolished.What do we have now? The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) was given a couple of officers in Canberra whose whole job is to try to do what previously half of the Office of Multicultural Affairs was engaged in doing: that is, ensure that there are programs which overcome the problems of discrimination and ensure access and equity and the like. Now we have these couple of officers working in the department supposedly monitoring all the departments of the federal government in relation to this whole issue of access and equity. What a joke! As was proven in the discussions that I had in 1994, the reality is that the Public Service in this country has its own entrenched processes and structures and was not interested in actually changing its structures to deliver genuine access and equity. That was when we had a large number of people monitoring the situation.Now what have we done? We have got rid of all those people and we have a couple of people in the department of immigration. If that was not enough, what happens to the independent Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission budget. We have to reduce the number of commissioners, and we have to get rid of the specific commissioners. That is our idea of ensuring that there is not discrimination in this country and that there is an enforcement of human rights. This is an absolute nonsense. We have gone backwards in the estimation of the international community in relation to this matter. What we have to do is strengthen those programs, not weaken them.I do not know why the Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs Moylan) is here. Given the reduction in resources, I do not know what she intends to do about discrimination against women. Does she expect that discrimination against women is going to go down once resources are reduced? Is that what she expects when we know that in fact the opposite is happening?7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—Do we?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—`Do we?' says the Attorney-General. Of course, you would not know, would you? Because you do not even bother to look into these matters. You are not even concerned. You did not even defend this commission when it went to cabinet; you allowed those cuts to this commission to go through. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you were really serious about these matters, you would have asked for more resources in this area instead of allowing these massive cuts to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to take place.7V5WILLIAMSMr Williams—Just throw money at it!QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—You think it is just a question of throwing money at it, do you? It is not a question of throwing money at it at all. Some of your legislation is inadequate in this area as well, and you need to do something about it. But what have you done about it in the years that you have been in government? Nothing. That situation is serious.4V5MOYLANMrs Moylan—We've done more than you.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I remind you that we put the whole structure in place. Also, if you look at our reports on access and equity and in this area, we were never satisfied with what was happening. In every single report we said that more needs to be done. Have a look at the 1994 and 1995 reports on access and equity. These reports openly and honestly state, `We have problems, we are dealing with those problems, but we need to deal with them even further.' At no point did we say, `We are self-satisfied; we can cut the resources off a body such as the human rights commission.'4V5MOYLANMrs Moylan—You just kept putting out report after report and did nothing with them.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The minister knows that there has been a substantial increase in the problems confronting women. During question time, she tried to tell us how superannuation programs for women are getting better. I was just astounded by her statements.4V5MOYLANMrs Moylan—You didn't do anything about it, did you?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—We didn't, didn't we? We brought in a compulsory superannuation program which covered all workers, which therefore covered the most poorly paid part of the population, which happens to be women workers. What have you done? You have abandoned that program, you have got rid of that program, and therefore a large number of women who were in superannuation programs are no longer under those programs. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for getting rid of that superannuation program which covered all Australians. Now we have a situation where people are covered only if they want to be covered.4V5MOYLANMrs Moylan—Watch us, you might learn something.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask members to address their remarks through the chair.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The minister seems to think that she has done a good job of the superannuation issue, but she has done a great disservice to women in this country because the majority of beneficiaries of that program were women. There is a range of other areas, even wages for workers, where women are discriminated against and continue to be discriminated against. What is the minister doing about it? `We will do a great deal, won't we? We will cut the resources of the human rights commission.'Let us hope that the new structure which has been put into place is effective. We are going to be watching this very closely: we are going to be watching the appointments, we are going to be watching the resources which your government gives to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in its new restructured form and we are going to be bringing to your attention lapses in the area of the implementation of human rights.Especially with the Hanson phenomenon rampant in this country, there is no doubt that people now are very afraid about discrimina tion against them. It is not just a question of discrimination against women; it is also a question of discrimination in race and culture. We have had in this country a terrifying debate where even the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—belatedly, after two years of walking around like a blind man, not seeing what was happening—finally said the other day, `Some people of Asian background are starting to feel that maybe they are not welcome in Australia or that they are not really the same as the rest of us, that perhaps they are second-class citizens.'It took him two whole years to recognise what was happening with the Hanson phenomenon. If he had gone out and talked to people of ethnic backgrounds, if he had had a single minister who was interested in talking to the ethnic communities about these issues, then he might have understood what was happening—especially amongst people of Asian and Middle-Eastern backgrounds, people from Latin America and people from the recently arrived European groups. All those groups were wondering what was happening in Australia. They all started to feel that forms of discrimination against them would be allowed in this society, even encouraged. That is one of the most serious things that has developed as a result of allowing the Hanson phenomenon to build up in the way that it has.But I regret to say that this government is one for which, in most areas of its administration, the minimum amount is adequate: `We need some human rights legislation, let us have the minimum. Let us not have some of the best. Let us not have the best resourced. Let us not really do a good job. Let us just do a minimum and barely adequate job. That is enough for us.' That is something which is true of a whole range of areas in the administration of this government.From my point of view, I am very disappointed to see that so many programs put into place to overcome discrimination and to ensure people had basic human rights, access and equity have been totally abolished. We do not even monitor some of the matters that we used to monitor, for example, the access of people from different backgrounds to employ ment in the public service and programs which the government is supposed to be delivering fairly and adequately to everybody. I am sad to say that this bill reflects some of the worst changes in human rights in legislation before this parliament that I have seen in the years I have been here. I hope that we will be able to reverse some of these negative developments and change what is happening so that Australians can feel that their human rights are being protected. (Time expired)18:01:005688Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Lest it be thought that I am a dark force—given what the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said—it is always right to question anything. To question any direction that is being taken by government is a healthy thing; it is not necessarily a dark force. Those who see what happened in Queensland as being a result of the forces of evil or darkness are actually missing the point. They should be asking themselves what they have been doing in the last 15 to 20 years to muster that sort of opposition. It is really the large parties and the policies they have adopted that have brought about that opposition, not the Hanson factor. It is the anti large party phenomenon. People are sick to death of being preached to by people like some members of the House who are saying that there are sinister, dark forces at work. With respect, that is rubbish.All the time we need to question the direction of state based organisations. It is important to do this. Let me give you two examples. If you keep saying that we need to keep funding this and we need to go on and so forth, without pointing to examples you are missing the downside of these sorts of things. By way of background, I spoke in the House on 22 September 1997 about some people in my electorate who had run a small business for 36 years. They had the misfortune to be taken to the anti-discrimination commission by a totally unmeritorious applicant. I do not intend to repeat the facts I outlined in my grievance debate speech, but the cost to those people almost broke their business in two. They were decent, honourable people who were terrorised by the anti-discrimination commission. Ultimately, it had a fairly sad result. After I spoke in this place they eventu ally settled the case, not because they felt this person had merits but because they were advised, having spent $20,000 to defend their situation and the applicant having spent nothing because the state was funding him, to pay him something to get the whole thing off their backs. It becomes a question of blackmail in so many cases. If instruments of the state are used to effect that sort of result, we have to question what those instruments are doing.I was involved in another case. I acted for a chap who was charged with attempted rape some years ago. The case went to trial and in the course of defending himself this man lost his home and his family. He also lost his job because it was a workplace situation. But he defended himself successfully. He was found not guilty and acquitted. He gave evidence in his own trial and the jury were not convinced that the charge was proven beyond reasonable doubt. After that had finished he phoned me up and said that he had been advised that the prosecutrix in the case, the complainant, spoke to some of his friends at work and said that he got off because he lied to the jury. As a result of that, I suggested he take further legal action in the case. So he sued the complainant for defamation and for malicious prosecution. We took that to trial. He had no money so the solicitors and I undertook it on a speculative basis.That was before a civil jury. The case did not go just a couple of days. When we got to court we found that the defendant was funded ex gratia by the state Attorney-General. My solicitor and I were almost exhausted. We were tied up in a case for three weeks with no legal fees coming in. The whole thing was litigated again and the civil jury found that, on the balance of probabilities, not only did he not attempt to rape the woman but also she had defamed him. The court awarded a sum of damages.If I thought the case was over then, I was wrong because the next move that she made was to take him to the discrimination tribunal along with the employer. After all of that, some months later he rang me again and said, `She's at it again. She's after more money.' Having gone through the committal proceed ings, the criminal trial and the civil trial and even having taken it to an appeal initially—but that was dropped when the matter was finally settled—this woman got legal aid to go to the discrimination tribunal to have another shot. If you think that you sit around the table at the discrimination tribunal and you have nice negotiations, think again because what happens there is simply quite stark. The people who staff those tribunals become in a sense—as Gary Johns, the former minister, said—judge and advocate in the cases.They put it quite simply: `You can settle the case now or it will go for two weeks.' As I said to the person concerned, `We will be here for two weeks,'—because there is no way that this man is going to give her one red cent. But the former employer could not afford it—it was running an old people's home for charity—and, instead of being caught for two weeks in the discrimination tribunal with the resultant fees of probably in excess of $20,000, it paid her some money to get it out of that way. A totally unmeritorious complainant who had been though all those proceedings managed to extort some money yet again in another case. When the state, through its instrumentalities, is effecting that sort of result there is something wrong.I am a passionate advocate for the court system. There is no substitute for the court system because that is the only way you can get to the truth: you can have your trial, you can have the evidence in chief, the cross-examination, and the proper judicial process with a jury of 12 commonsense people, or four people in the case of a civil jury. But the so-called human rights area can effect an awful lot of human wrongs, and here are two cases where the someone had to pay up for the wrong reasons. If that is a system that the government is now attempting to look at and restructure, I say that is good, but it has not gone far enough. Mr Johns wrote in his article in the Australian on 31 July 1997:There is also some doubt over the use being made of the commission. For example, it has been reported that since the Racial Discrimination Act—administered by the commission—was passed 20 years ago, only 20 cases that have gone to public hearing have been upheld. Only 20 cases he refers to. He is talking about a report, so I do not know how accurate this is, but I do not think it has ever been challenged. You have to question where we are going if those are the figures, that we are spending an awful lot of money to effect that sort of result in 20 years. You really have to question that.This is one of the problems that the government parties have. They have snuggled up too close with the human rights industry. They have not been game to make themselves different from that side, so they have made some changes, they have tinkered at the edges, but they have not really created the cleavage that is necessary between the two sides of politics.That is what the people of Queensland have been saying in that state election. They are not saying that they have embraced Hansonism with a fervour. They are not saying that they have embraced the mad loony right. They are fed up with the lack of any identifiable group of policies that distinguishes the conservative side of politics from the Labor side of politics. We are all huddled together in this group with a few cliques in the middle of it all. This is one area where, I would submit, the government has a chance to do something much more.The problem goes further than that, and Dr Ron Brunton referred to this in his brilliant article Betraying the victims. . . which was his critique of the stolen generation report. I have never heard anybody say, `That's not correct.' I have not heard an analysis of Dr Brunton's report in which anyone has said, `Dr Brunton was completely wrong in his critique,' apart from Zita Antonios. She made some comments about it in a general sense—they were totally non-specific of course—but Ron Brunton said:I believe there are sufficient grounds to justify treating Bringing Them Home as one of the most intellectually and morally irresponsible reports to be presented to an Australian government in recent years.How many members of this parliament have read that critique? I guarantee there would not be more than a handful. It is a brilliant critique. It is not written by somebody who could ever be said to be a racist or some loony right person; this is a person who exposed the Hindmarsh Island fraud, who defended the so-called `dissident women', the Ngarrindjeri women. This is why Dr Brunton concluded his report by saying, about the members of the government, of which I was once part:Too many members of the Howard government seem to have lost confidence in the moral authority of their own supposed philosophical principles of liberalism, and seem to accept that they have no right to occupy the moral high ground. They need to remember that Martin Luther King's stirring wish that his children would see a time when people `will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character' is a classic expression of the liberal ideal.The member for Aston (Mr Nugent) made statements earlier on in relation to Sir Ronald Wilson. He was a good High Court judge but, with the greatest respect to Sir Ronald Wilson, he was an awful commissioner in these proceedings because he got down with the issue. Instead of staying above the issue, he got involved in the issue. There is an old saying: once you start getting involved with your client, you lose your judgment and your capacity for reason. You never get involved, if you are a lawyer, with your client's problems; you have got to be that distance removed. He was not.Consequently, we come up with this extraordinary comment emanating from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission through that report. Listen to this extraordinary comment by Dr Brunton:The current elasticity of genocide is brought home by the silliest statement in Bringing Them Home . This is the claim that "the continuation into the 1970s and 1980s of the practice of preferring non-Indigenous foster and adoptive families for Indigenous children was also arguably genocidal".Dr Brunton rightly observes:From such a perspective, virtually anything goes.That is the problem. When you say everything is discrimination or everything is genocidal, you lose the meaning and you lose the ability to flush out the cases that need to be flushed out—the cases where there has been terrible discrimination or terrible treatment—because you are mixed up with these generalisations. It comes from the inexactitude of language that has crept into our society so much that now, instead of the analysis of the stolen generation report so-called, we are presented with something which Dr Brunton says—rightly, in my opinion—is a very questionable document, and yet it becomes the norm.It is a bit like the human rights industry generally. There is the statement by the English socialist Hastie: `Racism increases in direct proportion to the number of highly paid bureaucrats you employ to find it.' We have a situation here where the government has been caught up in this environment. In 1990 the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) opposed the Convention on the Rights of the Child when he was in opposition, but now the government say, `No, we are prepared to content ourselves with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.' They have lost their moral, persuasive authority. They are not able to say, `That is not good enough. That is not what we as liberals'—with a small `l'—`believe in.' Consequently, we have the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, as one human rights document. It is a great document bar the three or four very nasty little clauses dealing with child autonomy which effectively can impinge upon the Australian family. We have seen examples of that already by virtue of the international committee trying to tell Australian families how they should bring up their children.When we hear the member for Calwell saying these things about dark forces and when we hear people unable to articulate the distinctions that are necessary to be made between certain forms of conduct that are acceptable and certain forms of conduct that are not acceptable—lumping everything in and calling it genocide, for example, no matter what it is—we lose sight of the problems for individuals.That is why we saw the awful situation involving Hindmarsh Island where the women who were honest—the decent women—were called the dissident women because they were saying, `This is a fraud, this is a fabrication.' They were called dissident by the ABC, by the media and by everybody else—except for Dr Brunton and a few others who said that this was a fraud. Ultimately, because it was pursued through the courts—properly, with cross-examination and all those things that the legal process contains—the problem was fixed up and we came to the real truth of the matter.That is why I say that in this particular area we cannot rest on our laurels. We cannot afford to look at the new commission and say, `This will solve the problem. We will have all these nice conferences where people will sit very happily around the table.' Can you imagine sitting around a table with someone who spat in your face? That is what happened to an employee of one of my constituents. He was spat at by the individual who took them to the commission. Can you imagine sitting around a table with an individual like that? That is the notion that is implied in this commission idea—that we all sit around and resolve it in this cosy way. It does not work, and it has to be acknowledged that it does not work.You cannot allow people to use the state systems to effect an instrument of terror on decent, law-abiding citizens, and that can happen. It is no good saying, `That wouldn't happen all that often.' If it happens in one case it has happened in one too many cases, because those people were nearly run out of business as a result of that matter. I say again: we need to be vigilant and ever careful. We have had a very lame response from anyone who wants to look at the issue in relation to the stolen generation. We have not had any intellectual debate about this. We have had a blanket acceptance because we are petrified of political correctness. We really need a debate to help the victims, who were victims in the case of the stolen generation, instead of getting caught up in the debate that ultimately turns people to the Hansonism that is going to fuel the political divide in this country for a long time to come.18:21:005691Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I assume that all members who wish to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 have now spoken. I would like to thank the members for Banks (Mr Melham), Bradfield (Dr Nelson), Chifley (Mr Price), Throsby (Mr Hollis), Brisbane (Mr Bevis), Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), Aston (Mr Nugent), Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), who have contributed to the debate on the bill, and for their interest in it.As I outlined in my second reading speech, this bill is intended to be the catalyst for fundamental cultural change in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The changes it proposes to the structure and functions of the commission are a step forward, not a backwards step as has been alleged during the debate. The changes aim to remove those aspects of the commission's current structure and operations which most inhibit its ability to effectively promote and protect the human rights of all Australians while retaining the protection currently available to them under the federal anti-discrimination legislation. This fundamental cultural change in the commission is reflected in its proposed new name, the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. The new name also reflects the importance of promoting an understanding of every Australian's responsibility to respect the human rights of others.In the course of the debate on the bill, a number of issues have been raised by the members who have spoken. I propose to address some of those issues. The member for Banks has claimed that the government's reductions in the budget of the commission amount to some 55 per cent over five years. It is hardly a criticism of the current government, which has been in office for just over two years, but the claim is in any event wrong. If the member for Banks had checked his figures before talking about this, he would have known that the reduction in real terms amounts to only about 27 per cent over the last three years. This government was elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility after it inherited from the Labor government a large budget deficit which could not be sustained. The reductions in the commission's funding reflect a need across government to ensure that in difficult financial times funds are applied in an efficient manner. The commission was subjected to budget reductions and, like all agencies within the Attorney-General's portfolio, was also subject to the standard efficiency dividend of four per cent.Additional reductions in the commission's funding can be clearly justified on other grounds. For example, reductions associated with the transfer of the commission's hearing and determination functions to the Federal Court are a natural consequence of the government's response to the High Court's decision in Brandy v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This change was not made to achieve savings but rather to reflect the fact that the commission would no longer be performing a particular function. Further `reductions' resulted from the completion of projects which had been allocated specific and limited funding. In reality, these are not reductions that all; rather, the loss of funding inevitably follows from the completion of the projects for which the additional funding had been provided.The member for Chifley asked about the processes which led to the government's decision to restructure the commission and move from five specialist commissioners to three deputy presidents. He should know, and I happy to remind him, that it was in fact his own party when in government which established a tripartite review of the commission's structure and operations. That review involved the commission itself, along with my department and the then Department of Finance.In response to the contention of the member for Jagajaga that there is simply no evidence that the current commission is inefficient and top-heavy, I would like to make it clear that it was the tripartite review to which I have just referred that identified a number of aspects of the current structure and operations of the commission which needed attention. I can add, from my own perspective, that it seemed odd to me that a portfolio agency would have at the deputy secretary level more persons than were in the department itself at the same time. The review also made a number of recommendations for changes to the structure and operations of the commission, many of which have been adopted by the government in this bill and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1), the Brandy bill, which is currently before the Senate.The member for Banks also suggested that the government has been deliberately delaying debate on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) in the Senate. Let me make it plain that I categorically reject this assertion. Delays have in fact arisen as a result of the opposition's very public stance against the worthwhile reforms proposed by that bill. As the Labor Party knows, those reforms are supported by the commission itself, which is anxiously awaiting the passage of the bill to remove the uncertainty which has been affecting its activities since the High Court's decision in Brandy. But it is not just the commission which has been affected. The government is very concerned at the impact of this unnecessary delay on persons who are currently parties to complaints under the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination legislation. While there is this delay, the big losers are the complainants and the respondents. The Senate can provide them with an effective and enforceable complaint handling system by passing the Brandy bill as soon as possible.The member for Jagajaga criticised the Brandy bill on the basis of exposure to fees and costs in Federal Court proceedings that would result from passage of the bill. The provisions of that bill are not relevant to the bill we are debating, but I think there is an appropriate response to the criticisms which should be made. First, the cost regime in the Federal Court reflects arrangements under the existing system. A party seeking to enforce a commission determination in the Federal Court is already subject to the possibility of an adverse costs order. However, the removal of the unenforceable commission hearing function will provide parties who are unsuccessful at conciliation with direct access to the Federal Court. The scheme has the potential to redress significant delays in the current system and reduce the cost associated with obtaining a binding determination in anti-discrimination matters.Secondly, it has always been the case that the usual rules for fees apply to anti-discrimination complaints in the Federal Court. However, in accordance with current practice, these fees are not payable where a person has a card entitling him or her to Commonwealth health benefits, is receiving legal aid, Austudy or Abstudy, is a minor or a prisoner or is a person who would suffer financial hardship if obliged to pay the fees.Thirdly, the bill contains a number of initiatives designed to reduce cost and formality in Federal Court proceedings. The court will be able to adopt informal procedures, as it will not be bound by technicalities or legal forms. Special registry procedures will be established for human rights matters, and the commission will be able to assist with the preparation of forms necessary to commence proceedings in the Federal Court. Where there is hardship, either party to a proceeding will be able to apply to the Attorney-General for financial assistance for the proceedings.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—I will continue my address in reply on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . The member for Banks said that the Labor Party opposed the provisions in this bill which remove the commission's ability to recommend the payment of damages in relation to certain complaints, because of amendments they proposed to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , currently in the Senate; that is, the Brandy bill. The Labor Party's amendments would retain the commission's power to impose binding determinations on Commonwealth agencies.The member for Banks has, however, seriously confused two completely different categories of complaints which can be brought before the commission. The government's proposals in this bill are concerned with complaints under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of breaches of human rights or equal opportunity. These complaints do not result in any finding of unlawful conduct; rather, they may be the subject of a report to the Attorney-General, which must be tabled in the parliament. They involve not only Commonwealth agencies but, potentially, private citizens and organisations.The Labor Party's amendments to the bill in the Senate deal with complaints of unlawful discrimination under the disability, racial and sex discrimination acts, so they would not assist in relation to the complaints which are the subject of this bill before the House. Currently, the commission can make non-binding recommendations for the payment of damages or compensation in relation to complaints under the HREOC act, alleging breaches of certain human rights, including by federal agencies, section 11(1)(f), or alleging that acts or practices, including by federal or state agencies, are impairing equality of opportunity in employment, section 31(b).Under the government's proposed structure, the commission will retain the power to inquire into complaints of breaches of human rights or allegations of impairment of equality of opportunity, to attempt to conciliate them and, if necessary, to report to the Attorney-General in relation to those complaints. However, the commission will not retain its function of recommending the payment of compensation in respect of loss or damage arising out of such complaints.Removal of this function is consistent with the commission being primarily a forum for the negotiation and conciliation of complaints, rather than a quasi-judicial forum adjudicating on people's rights. It is also consistent with the commission's new emphasis on educating and informing people about their human rights and responsibilities.The honourable member for Banks and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) have raised the question of the cost of establishing a separate office of the Privacy Commissioner. The bill will create a separate statutory office of the Privacy Commissioner. The office will consist of the Privacy Commissioner and her staff. There is no reason why the establishment of a separate statutory office of the Privacy Commissioner should involve any additional expense. There will be no change in the Privacy Commissioner's functions or powers. There will be no need to incur costs in setting up the office, as the Privacy Commissioner already functions independently within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.The Privacy Commissioner has always operated with her own dedicated HREOC staff. To the extent that the Privacy Commissioner has previously been provided with administrative support centrally by the commission, I understand that she intends to continue to purchase such support from the commission. The act allows her to operate on this basis.The creation of a separate office will provide the Privacy Commissioner with an opportunity to increase the profile, and thus the effectiveness, of her work in promoting the protection of individual privacy across all sectors. This increase in the profile of the Privacy Commissioner underlines the government's commitment to the protection of privacy.The member for Calwell suggested that one of the government's aims in restructuring the commission is to remove those members of the commission who have been critical of the government's record on human rights issues. I wish to make it very clear that no decisions have been made in relation to the new deputy president positions, following the passage of this bill.The government firmly believes that the commission's new structure and focus, which I have already outlined, will help it to contribute to the further enhancement of Australia's enviable reputation as a world leader in this area. However, such a major reorganisation of the commission necessarily involves establishing new positions of deputy presidents to replace the positions of specialist commissioners.Given the fundamental changes in the focus of the commission, it is appropriate that the government have an opportunity to re-appraise all relevant aspects of its operations. Once the bill is passed into law the government will consider appointments to fill the deputy president positions.As always when making these appointments the government will appoint the best possible people to fill the positions in the commission. The government's commitment in this respect has been demonstrated by its recent appointments of the new president of the commission and the new Sex Discrimination Commis sioner, both of whom received broad political and community support. We will appoint to the commission the most appropriately qualified and experienced people we can find, taking into account the functions and duties of the commission and of the deputy presidents themselves.The member for Aston mentioned the regional work undertaken by the commission. While not directly relevant to the bill, I also commend the work done by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in promoting the establishment and development of human rights institutions within the Asian region.The member for Calwell made numerous references to an access and equity program conducted in the former Office of Multicultural Affairs. In response to his comments, all I can say is I will draw the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) to them.The member for Dickson referred extensively to forensic experiences in relation to human rights cases. I do not propose to comment on any individual case. The member for Dickson also referred to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that the coalition, as he put it, opposed the convention. In fact, the situation was that in 1993 the opposition moved disallowance of the declaration by the then government of the convention as a scheduled document to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. There has been a lot happen since 1993 in relation to the convention, including an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I propose not to comment further, except to point out that that report is awaited with interest.I again thank all honourable members whose interest has prompted them to contribute to the debate and who have given the bill careful consideration. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.20:13:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly)75Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.*Griffin, A. P.* Hatton, M.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, A. C.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Dondas, N. M. Jenkins, H. A.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Crean, S. F.Thomson, A. P. McLeay, L. B.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5696Motion (by Mr Williams) proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.20:16:005696Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—Having divided on the second reading, the opposition do not propose to divide on the third reading. But we do make our opposition clear: we will be opposing this bill in the Senate. We will vote against it on the voices at the third reading stage, but not dividing. I do not want the government to take any comfort from this, because we will oppose it every inch of the way in the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills569656964K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—I ask leave of the House to present a bill for an act relating to regional forest agreements.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Is leave granted?20:18:005696Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Madam Deputy Speaker, before indicating whether we on this side grant leave, I wonder whether I might have your indulgence to make some brief remarks about the process, given the somewhat unusual nature of the request of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson)?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The minister seeks to introduce legislation underpinning the RFA process. We on this side have indicated consistently that in principle we support such legislation, and I repeat that.In this area, more so than in many others, the devil is in the detail. As a consequence, we would wish to closely examine the detail of any legislation which the minister might introduce. As well, given that only three RFAs have been signed to date, we would not want such legislation to give a blank cheque to endorse those other nine RFA processes in advance of these individual processes being undertaken.While happy to see this legislative side of the RFA agreement process finally being pursued by the government, it remains of great disappointment to us—and, no doubt, to the people of Burnie—that the industrial development side of the RFA process has, on the contrary, effectively been dumped by the government, namely, the wood and paper industry strategy.On processes generally I note that the government has struggled this week to present government business, and now that it is five minutes to midnight we get this substantive legislation.Given that industry wants bipartisan support for this legislation and while detailed consultation has, no doubt, occurred with industry, it is regrettable that the minister and the government did not give detailed legislative briefings on the contents of this legislation as the process went along either to me or to my colleague the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Denison (Mr Kerr). If I were you, minister, I would have made a point of doing that.Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister has indicated that he seeks only to introduce the bill at this point in the cycle. On that basis, I thank you for your indulgence. Leave is granted. Bill presented by Mr Anderson, and read a first time.569720:20:005697Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Let me say at the outset that the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 involved quite exhaustive consultation which carried right through until very late in the day. I appreciate that the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Denison (Mr Kerr), wants the opportunity to look at this closely. I appreciate too that he has indicated his essential willingness to support a legislative backing for the regional forest agreements to ensure an end to the uncertainty, unpredictability and, if you like, quite acrimonious anti-investment climate that has built up in the forest industries in recent times. I assure him that we sought to do everything in good faith to ensure that we have a process here which will achieve the objectives that I think we have all agreed on.The member for Denison will, I think, accept that we have had difficulty in ensuring that this meets our agreed objectives. He will, I think, find when he looks at it that all is to his satisfaction and that this is one of those classic—to use a cliche—win-win situations where the industry, the workers in it and the broader economy benefit from an increased degree of certainty. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the head of NAFI, Robert Bain. I think he has other representatives of the industry with him.I have much pleasure in introducing this bill which will provide legislative support to the outcomes being achieved under the regional forest agreement process. As honourable members would be aware, the government has been working cooperatively with the states to accelerate implementation of the national forest policy statement—the framework for a much needed long-term and lasting resolution of conservation, forest industry and community interests and expectations concerning our nation's forests.The statement requires joint Commonwealth -state comprehensive regional assessments of the environmental, heritage, economic and social values of Australia's forests. These assessments, involving a high degree of input from interest groups, form the basis of negotiated regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the states. Regional forest agreements, RFAs, are designed to provide both a blueprint for the future management of our forests and the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry. RFAs will provide for a world-class national, comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, and will clearly identify those forest resources available for multiple use, including resources available for sustainable timber harvesting.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—Hear, hear!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—`Hear, hear!' as the honourable member behind me with considerable forest interests says. I note that he is joined here tonight by many others with a genuine interest in the future of our forest industries. The members for McEwen (Mrs Bailey), McMillan (Mr Broadbent) and Fisher (Mr Slipper) are all here and are very keen and strong supporters of regional forest agreements.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That's because they're all logs!4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—Let me just make the observation that logs at least have some value. RFAs, and the comprehensive and transparent processes that lead to them, provide industry, environmental interests and the community with unprecedented certainty. However, it is clear that industry and environmental groups alike hold concerns that future governments may simply walk away from such agreements. This is what previous governments have done when it suited them. It is time to draw an end to that sort of cavalier attitude to a vitally important rural and regional industry in this country.To allay these concerns, key provisions in certain RFAs already in place are expressed to be legally binding on the parties. However, not all existing RFAs are so expressed and neither are all the provisions that are contained in those agreements. The Common wealth now proposes that all existing and future RFAs be strengthened by providing that termination by mutual consent of the parties can only occur 12 months after an intention to terminate the agreement is notified, thereby allowing a full review of the operation of the RFA to be carried out.In the interests of enhancing industry confidence in RFAs, the Commonwealth also proposes that all RFAs will include positive obligations on the states to initiate compensation action on behalf of industry where a Commonwealth breach of an RFA results in a case for compensation. We propose that negotiations begin about including these provisions in existing RFAs as soon as possible.In conjunction with these proposed changes to the RFAs, this bill provides the legislative backing needed to ensure that all Australians have confidence in the long-term future of Australia's forest estate. This confidence will be further sustained through, firstly, the enactment of state legislation, where necessary, to authorise wood supply arrangements and to declare and protect agreed forest reserves and, secondly, the provision of ongoing wood supply agreements and contractual arrangements between individual states and companies where state owned forests are involved.In summary, it is the RFAs themselves which remain the focus of our policy approach. We firmly believe community and investor confidence in forest industries will be best secured by strong RFAs which provide for ecologically sustainable management of our forests. This bill, together with complementary state legislation and strong wood supply contractual arrangements between industry and state governments, will provide that confidence—so long overdue for our forest industries.As I have already stated, this bill provides a broad legislative context for all RFAs, with each RFA including provisions appropriate to the region concerned. Consequently, the bill is concise and has been drafted to ensure it can accommodate the necessary flexibility within, and between, individual RFAs.One of the bill's main objectives is to provide legislative rigour to RFA termination and compensation provisions. The bill will ensure the termination of an RFA will have no effect unless it is done in accordance with the RFA's termination provisions. It will also ensure that the Commonwealth is liable for any breach of an RFA which occurs while it is in force, even if the agreement is subsequently terminated or expires. The effect of the bill's provisions will mean the Commonwealth will not be able to agree to `water down' such termination or compensation provisions in the future without legislative amendment. The bill also provides that the termination and compensation provisions in the RFA at the time of the commencement of the bill, or the provisions which apply at the commencement of the RFA itself, whichever is later, will continue to apply.Let me make it very clear to honourable members: the Commonwealth will offer to include in all RFAs the same termination and compensation provisions contained in the Tasmanian and Central Highlands RFAs at the time the act commences, subject of course to any minor changes to reflect differing state processes.The other main objective of the bill is to remove certain Commonwealth controls and restrictions which, in the past, have been used—if I may say so, sometimes quite outrageously—as an indirect means to attempt to control timber harvesting. This is in stark contrast to the RFA process, which is based on comprehensive, scientific assessment of the environmental, heritage, economic, and social values of forests in a region. As a result of such comprehensive assessments, which form the basis of negotiated RFAs, the Commonwealth has concluded its environment and heritage obligations in relation to forestry operations in the region. Consequently, the bill ensures the effects of RFA forestry operations will be disregarded for the purposes of specified `trigger' sections of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and its related administrative procedures, and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.The bill will also prohibit the application of export controls imposed under the Export Control Act 1982 for processed and unprocessed wood sourced from a region where an RFA is in force. This exemption will extend to plantation sourced wood from the region unless the relevant state's code of practice is not approved under the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations. The exemption will further apply to any other Commonwealth law which prohibits or restricts exports to another country, or which has the effect of so doing, unless that law expressly refers to wood sourced from an RFA. While we understand that it is not possible to bind a future Commonwealth parliament from legislating within its constitutional responsibilities, this bill provides this parliament with an opportunity to express its clear intention that such controls not be placed on wood from a region where an RFA is in place.This bill provides the solid legislative backing to the outcomes being achieved by regional forest agreements and the processes that lead to them. It is yet another significant step in ensuring that we all—governments, environmental and heritage interests, forest industries, and the communities and families across regional Australia that depend on them—can have confidence for the future of Australia's forests. It is one of a series of government initiatives in this important sector. In conjunction with the RFA process, it is worthy of note that the government has also committed in excess of $100 million to the forest industry structural adjustment program to assist native forest industry businesses and workers affected by the introduction of such agreements.In addition, the Commonwealth has allocated over $31 million—and the shadow spokesman might like to note this—to the wood and paper industry strategy, WAPIS, to promote growth and investment in forest industries, including greater downstream processing and value enhancement, plantation development and farm forestry. Under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia, a further $36.5 million over four years has been provided to the farm forestry program.In relation to plantation development, the government is a key partner in `Plantations for Australia—the 2020 Vision', along with state and territory governments and the plantation growing and processing industries. For its part, the Commonwealth has allocated $1.9 million from the Prime Minister's greenhouse package to meet its obligations under the Plantations 2020 Vision. This bill sits comfortably with all these initiatives. Together, I really do believe they will provide the forest industry with the necessary support to enable it to plan with confidence for a positive future while at the same time ensuring the protection of the unique environmental and heritage values of our forest estate.In passing, I make a reference to a very interesting conversation I had with some people in the forest industries from the electorate of the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) who were recently in Tasmania where an RFA has been signed. They were saying that they could not believe the quiet confidence and satisfaction that people in the forest industries were expressing there as they see new investment and job opportunities unfolding. They expressed, with that, a real concern that in New South Wales—RH4KERRMr Kerr—What planet are you on?4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—the regional forest agreements be put in place in a fair and reasonable way as soon as possible. That reflects the value of the regional forest agreements. The member for Denison might simply like to reflect on the fact that his team were in power for 13 years and managed nothing other than stand-off and dislocation between the industry and the conservation movement in this country where everyone lost. We have managed to put in place a fair and reasonable approach which ensures the future and the values that all of us are concerned about. I commend this bill with great enthusiasm to all honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned. Tariff Proposals570020:34:005700Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:Excise Tariff Proposal No. 4 (1998); andCustoms Tariff Proposal No. 5 (1998)It certainly is a good news night tonight. Following the very important legislation just introduced by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson), I have some good news for the aviation industry. The tariff proposals which I have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Excise Tariff Proposal No. 4 (1998) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5 (1998) formally place before parliament proposed reductions in the excise and customs duty on aviation gasoline—known as avgas. The alterations contained in these proposals implement the reduction of 13.092c per litre in the rate of excise and customs duty on avgas with effect from tomorrow, 1 July 1998, as previously announced by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon. Mark Vaile MP.This reduction is the third instalment of Airservices Australia's pricing reforms and removes the remaining avgas duty directed to Airservices Australia in conjunction with the introduction of location specific pricing for terminal navigation services. The first instalment was delivered in 1997 with the introduction of location specific charges for rescue and firefighting services. The second was delivered with the removal of the en route services component of the avgas duty with effect from 25 May 1998. This latest pricing reform is in line with the government's commitment to implement a fair and equitable system for recovering the costs of providing air traffic services to the industry.The general aviation sector now pays about $17 million per year through the avgas levy for services that they do not necessarily use. By removing this tax, the government is ensuring that there is a transparency in the charges collected by Airservices Australia. The cut in fuel costs will mean real benefits to private pilots and small operators and will help some regional and charter airlines keep downward pressure on airfares, benefiting the travelling public. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills5700s1715700Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.570020:38:005700Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1998—`the bill'—is to overcome transitional problems associated with the proposed commencement of Corporations Law sections 249HA and 250BA. These sections will be inserted into the Corporations Law by the Company Law Review Bill 1998—`the review bill. They were inserted into the review bill by the Senate and their insertion was subsequently agreed to by the House of Representatives on 25 June 1998.Section 249HA obliges a company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange—`a listed company'—to give at least 28 days notice of a meeting of it members. Section 250BA obliges a listed company to include in the notice of a meeting of its members a fax number for the purpose of receipt of proxy appointments.The government proposes to commence the review bill on 1 July 1998, including sections 249HA and 250BA. This will allow the amendments to be made to the Corporations Law by the review bill to commence at the same time as a number of other bills making substantial reforms to the Australian financial sector.There are listed companies that have given notice of a meeting of their members to be held after 1 July 1998 without having given the 28 days notice of the meeting required by section 249HA. Furthermore, the notice of the meeting may not have specified a fax number for the purpose of the receipt of proxy appointments as required by section 250BA. If these companies do not comply with sections 250HA and 250BA there will be legal uncertainty about the validity of any resolutions passed at the meetings.The bill has the effect that sections 249HA and 250BA do not apply to a meeting of the members of a listed company if the notice of the meeting was given before they commence. The bill therefore provides legal certainty concerning the validity of these meetings. Passage of the bill in the 1998 winter sittings will avoid the need for companies affected by sections 249HA and 250BA to incur the additional expense of convening a further meeting that complies with those sections.The government has warned that it is important that there is appropriate public exposure and consultation on all amendments to the review bill in order to obtain feedback from the business and professional community to ensure that the amendments achieve their intended effect from a policy and implementation perspective. The government encourages the parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities to inquire into and report on all amendments to the review bill which were passed by the Senate, after considering submissions on the amendments. The government also encourages stakeholders to provide their comment on the amendments to the committee. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill. I commend the bill to the House.Leave granted for second reading debate to proceed forthwith.20:41:005701Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—This amendment is brought to the House by Coca-Cola! Labor will be supporting the amendment on the following basis: that the bill insert a transitional provision to allow companies which had given notice of a shareholders' meeting prior to the passage of the Company Law Review Bill 1997 to be exempted from the new requirement in that bill to give a minimum of 28 days notice for shareholder meetings.The need for this amendment arises from the Senate's amendment to the Company Law Review Bill on 25 June which increased the minimum notice period for the calling of shareholder meetings from the 21 days proposed in that bill to 28 days. The current provisions in the Corporations Law require a 14-day notice period. The 28-day notice requirement is in line with best practice in a number of other countries, including the USA and the UK, and it is considered to be an improvement in shareholder transparency and fairness.However, the recent amendment has created a transitional problem for companies which had already given a notice of meeting under the old provisions or in anticipation of the 21-day period. For example, we are advised that Coca-Cola Amatil had previously given notice to the Australian Stock Exchange that it would be holding a shareholders' meeting but had allowed for 21 days notice in anticipation of the passage of the Company Law Review Bill in an unamended form. I might say, I think that was somewhat unwise on their part. I would suspect that companies, and indeed others, ought to be placing more weight on what Labor is saying about these things than having regard to the prospect of Senate amendments.However, we have a situation where the Senate's amendment would mean that Coca-Cola Amatil's proposed meeting would be invalid and would have to be reconvened, causing Coca-Cola Amatil to incur a large additional expense. In the interests of avoiding the unnecessary expense—which would, of course, ultimately be passed on to Coca-Cola Amatil shareholders or customers, as well as being passed on to shareholders of companies which may be in a similar position—this is a non-controversial bill which will exempt Coca-Cola Amatil and companies in a similar position from the new provisions, thus allowing them to avoid the additional costs.Labor believes this bill inserts an appropriate transitional amendment which will avoid disadvantaging shareholders of companies that have already given a notice of meeting which does not comply with the new provisions. The bill is not intended to open a loophole for companies which have not already given notice. Companies which have not already issued a meeting notice will have to comply with the new 28-day rule after commencement.Those who participated in or who heard the debate on the Company Law Review Bill 1997 will remember that the Senate agreed to a range of amendments concerning the regulation of companies, including a Labor amendment to require annual directors' reports to shareholders to disclose the remuneration of company directors and the top five named officers of the company. I am pleased to report that those amendments were the subject of quite considerable media comment, and quite favourable media comment, as they should be given that public disclosure of these salaries is very much in the public interest.I think those amendments would appear to be all the more timely given the comments reported in the weekend papers by Mr Bill Jocelyn, the retiring chief executive of the GIO insurance company, about executive salaries in the financial services industry. Mr Jocelyn was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:. . . generally speaking, the chief executives in the financial services industry are overpaid relative to what it is the community ought to pay them.Indeed, he labelled some of his insurance executive peers overpaid and stupid and criticised the direction of the insurance industry and its tendency to import chief executives and pay them huge salaries. As the report in the Daily Telegraph mentions, you have a situation with the AMP chief getting some $20 million from the float of his company.Mr Jocelyn has expressed some concerns about the potential move away from a focus on policy holders towards shareholders in senior management. What Labor's amendment to the Corporations Law will do is force directors to discuss the policies behind remuneration of directors and executive officers and, importantly, the relationship between a company's performance and the remuneration packages paid out. That means that, if a company does not perform but a director is still well remunerated, the directors will have to publicly justify the decision to remunerate senior officers in that way to shareholders. Mr Jocelyn's comments are well timed and coincide with Labor's Corporations Law amendments to require more adequate disclosure of remuneration packages and policies, particularly in relation to the performance of a company to shareholders. This is in line with best practice in advanced economies and should result in greater transparency and accountability. Labor supports the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5702Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Miles) read a third time.Bills5702r3985702Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate, with further amendments.Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Miscellaneous5702570210000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Kelly)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority:(a) removal of Old Parliament House Annex;(b) construction of pedestrian and cycle access to and from Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue bridges;(c) minor roadworks in front of Old Parliament House; and (d) external restoration works for Old Parliament House, proposed on behalf of the Department of Communications and the Arts.Bills5703Message received from the Governor-General informing the House of assent to the following bills: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Bill 1998 Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Financial Institutions Supervisory Levies Collection Bill 1998 Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Bill 1998 General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Payment Systems (Regulation) Bill 1998 Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998 Company Law Review Bill 1997 Managed Investments Bill 1997 Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Bill 1998 Bills5703r5535703Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.21:50:005703Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—The Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 makes two changes to the Family Law Act 1975 in relation to intercountry adoption. The explanatory memorandum has the general outline of the bill. I think it is worthwhile reciting that explanatory memorandum, which states: The Bill will enable regulations to be made to give effect to bi-lateral arrangements with other countries on intercountry adoption. The objective is to provide for automatic recognition of adoption decisions made in countries which are prescribed in the regulations. In negotiations with the government of the People's Republic of China on a bi-lateral agreement on intercountry adoption, the Chinese representatives have insisted on an assurance that Australian law will recognise adoption decisions made under Chinese law. The amendments proposed in this Bill will enable regulations to be made to give recognition in Australian law to adoption decisions made in the People's Republic of China. The negotiation of a bi-lateral agreement with China can then be finalised.The Bill will enable regulations to be made to confer jurisdiction on Australian courts to make decisions on intercountry adoptions. In developing relations for the implementation in Australia of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption 1993, State and Territory Governments have proposed that decisions on applications for adoption should be made by certain State and Territory courts. At present the provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 do not provide for jurisdiction to be conferred on all of these courts. The amendments proposed in this Bill will enable regulations to be made to confer jurisdiction on the relevant courts.The bill is non-contentious. It has the support of the opposition, and I indicate to the government that we are prepared to facilitate speedy passage of this bill through the parliament.20:53:005703Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—I do not know whether the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham) is turning over a new leaf, but in speaking on a couple of bills recently his contributions have been—in a blessed way—quite brief, and I thank him for that. The government is also appreciative of the fact that the opposition is supporting, and prepared to assist, the passage of the Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 currently before the chamber.As has been pointed out, the Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) proposes that two changes be made to the Family Law Act 1975 to facilitate Australia's international arrangements on intercountry adoption. The bill will change the Family Law Act to permit the promulgation of regulations giving automatic recognition to adoption decisions made under the law of prescribed overseas jurisdictions. Currently, only one country—the People's Republic of China—is proposed to be a `prescribed jurisdiction' for the purpose of this amendment, but in the future, if the various state and territory governments from around Australia are prepared to agree, there could be further regulations made prescribing other jurisdictions. So, while initially this proposal will be restricted to the People's Republic of China, it is possible that the ambit of this amendment might well be wider in the future. But, given the fact that states and territories have responsibility for adoption law in Australia, it is clear that the ambit of this amendment could not be wider without the consent of those state and territory jurisdictions.The second change proposed by the bill will amend the Family Law Act again to facilitate arrangements for implementation of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) tabled the convention in parliament on 1 April 1998. Unlike our predecessors, this government does have in place a new treaty making process which ensures that any proposed treaty is available for consultation and is open to public scrutiny. There have been discussions between state and territory governments. In this case, the arrangements for the implementation of the convention have been developed by the federal government working in a cooperative way with state and territory governments.It has been proposed by those other state and territory governments that certain territory and state courts should have the right to exercise jurisdiction in relation to decisions concerning adoption to be made under the convention. Present provisions of the Family Law Act do allow jurisdiction to be conferred on some, but not all, of the relevant courts. The bill currently before the chamber will ensure that the Family Law Act is changed to permit the necessary promulgation of regulations when required to ensure that the conferral of jurisdiction on courts can be dealt with in a comprehensive way.It has also been stressed that the legislation before the chamber does not have any finan cial impact. The government hopes that this legislation will be passed expeditiously and we are heartened in this aim by the words of the honourable member for Banks, who indicated that the opposition was prepared to facilitate passage of this legislation through the parliament. When he says through the parliament, one would imagine that he is referring to the Senate where the government does not have the numbers to pass legislation without support from either the opposition or other parties.Intercountry adoptions have become quite popular in Australia over the years, and some 300 children from around the world are adopted each year by parents in this country. The Victorian Department of Human Services has actually acted on behalf of other state and territory governments and negotiated with the authorities in mainland China towards a new bilateral agreement on the adoption of children from that country by parents not only in Victoria but also in other parts of Australia.Interestingly enough, the Chinese authorities have said that they will not allow an agreement to be finalised unless adoption decisions under Chinese law are given automatic recognition under Australian law, and that is the reason that this piece of law is being passed through the parliament at this time. As I said earlier, adoption is indeed a state and territory matter, but presently there is no consistent mechanism in Australian state or territory law for such recognition of overseas adoptions.This is an important piece of legislation. It is one of the great raft of bills that every year passes through the parliament supported by both sides of politics. At this time, when certain people might be stating their disillusionment with the political process and their opposition to the way that the Labor Party in question time misbehave and are constantly out of order, it ought to be recognised that many bills that pass through the House of Representatives are in fact passed in a bipartisan way.There is real cooperation in this place and in the committee system of the parliament. I think there might be a perception around that politicians are argumentative, that we tend to score points and that we appear to be remote from people in the Australian community, but when one looks at the ways that the parliament works in practice, the committee system operates and that many items of legislation receive the support of all members, it is clear that the political process in Australia is alive and well and working for the good of all Australians.Of course, we will continue to listen and consult. We appreciate that politicians do not have a monopoly on good ideas and commonsense. But the legislation currently before the chamber is an example of our ability to work through and bring forward a law which will make two sensible changes to the Family Law Act, two changes which have the support of both sides of politics. After this legislation passes through the parliament the Family Law Act will be very much better able to deal in a compassionate and humanitarian way with intercountry adoptions.So I am very pleased to be one of the members supporting this legislation before the House of Representatives tonight. As has been indicated, it does have the backing of the government and the opposition. Hopefully, it will pass through this place expeditiously and be given a speedy passage through the Senate. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I indicate my support for this item of legislation and I commend it to the chamber.21:01:005705Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—It is a pleasure to speak on a piece of legislation like the Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . Any moves that will facilitate the adoption of children, particularly children from overseas, are good moves that not only demonstrate a healthy Australian society but also indicate that we as a country are prepared to assist those countries that are sometimes less fortunate than ourselves and that do from time to time have difficulties with housing and the care of children who may be orphaned or otherwise separated from their parents or in some way needing the nurturing and care of a family. There are many good reasons for facilitating intercountry adoption in this way. Any move to help that process is a good move and I am glad to support it.Oddly enough, I am surprised by the statement of the preceding speaker, the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), that there are only 300 children adopted each year. I would have thought that there were more than that. People in my electorate have contacted me about overseas adoptions and the difficulties that they have encountered from time to time. It is interesting that we should be referring to the Peoples Republic of China, because we do know that, under that country's one child policy, there have been some very sad circumstances involving particularly female children. We have seen and read about the appalling conditions in some of the Chinese orphanages, which really do call for the facilitation of a measure such as this. It is very sad to see children suffering anywhere in the world, particularly when there are so many parents who are anxious and keen to provide loving homes for children.Some people in my electorate came to see me recently about this particular matter. There are many people looking for the mechanisms and the means to adopt children from overseas to complete their family picture. This particular couple came to see me some months ago. They had been in a relationship since 1991. They were a happy couple but were unable to have a child. After a period of about five years they still remained childless so they went to make inquiries. They did the right thing—they went to their doctor, they looked at the IVF/GIFT program. They then looked at overseas adoption. They went to a seminar about that and made some contact with the state department of family services. They had been in a strong de facto relationship for seven years and were married in November 1997. When they inquired about overseas adoption they were advised that they would have to be legally married for two years before an application could be submitted. This was a devastating blow for them, and it is a real anomaly.I took it up with the relevant minister at that time, Mrs Naomi Wilson, who was an extremely helpful minister in the Borbidge government. She wrote to me very promptly and explained the situation. She said that the particular act in Queensland, the Adoption of Children Act, was being reviewed. I hope that, under the new Beattie government, that act will be reviewed with a view to changing that situation because it is a real anomaly. People who have been together in a very solid relationship for seven years having to wait this additional time because they were not legally married is, in this day and age, an anomaly that needs to be corrected.In their case, unfortunately, there was no discretion available. However, they urged me to help and I will be urging the new minister—whoever that is, and I think it will probably be Mrs Anna Bligh—to look at that act as a matter of urgency to try and help people in their situation. As I say, the adoption of children from overseas is a priority for many couples who want to complete that natural desire to have a family, to have children to care for, and there are many children overseas who are in desperate need of care.With those few remarks, let me say I support this measure. Any measure to help facilitate this means of adopting children will, no doubt, benefit the community as a whole and the world as a whole. This is a good thing and we should encourage it.21:08:005706Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—I must say that, having listened to some of the other speakers, it is good to see that such bipartisan support has been put behind the Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . This bill is a great initiative and this is evidence that this coalition government is not only awake but also aware. The Labor government in past years had a history of incorrectly administering legislation, and it is a breath of fresh air to see that this parliament is working in the best interests of all Australians.The legislation makes two particular changes to the Family Law Act. As we have heard in the past, it actually amends the Family Law Act to enable regulations to be made giving automatic recognition to adoption decisions made under the law of prescribed overseas jurisdictions. At this time, the only jurisdiction which will be prescribed is the People's Republic of China. However, in future, if state and territory governments agree, it will be possible for further regulations to be made prescribing other jurisdictions. That information comes from the second reading speech by the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) and, like I say, it is a great initiative.This legislation will actually facilitate Australia's international arrangements on intercountry adoption. This is an event that provides a future for many Australians in relation to having a family when many often cannot have, or do not have the ability to have, children. So, as far as I am concerned, I think it is a wonderful initiative.A lot of couples would like to have children but, through no fault of their own or whatever, there is a problem. As the previous speaker, the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), was saying, it is imperative that people, if they want to, be able to complete their relationship to the point of having children to look after. I think that is wonderful. Some time down the track, my good wife and I would like to have children and, if we were not able to, I would like to think that we would be able to go through that process as well. It is not just an initiative for a small group of Australians; you do not know whom it will affect. That is why I say it is good legislation looking after good people, looking after good Australians.Further to that, the question should be looked at in relation to political parties. The legislation poses an interesting question. In fact, I would be interested to hear how One Nation would actually feel about the intercountry adoption process, obviously because of the make-up of the children drawn from other countries. It is an interesting debate. I think all political parties should be involved in this debate. It basically goes across all sections of our community and therefore I think it is important. It is great to see that the Independents have entered into the debate, as well as the Labor Party and the National-Liberal coalition. But we have not heard from some of the other Independents and it would be interesting to hear what they have to say or how they feel about the intercountry adoption process. It is a great initiative. Let us be very clear about this: there are people who want to adopt and there is a shortage of children who are available for adoption. People should be able to draw on children from overseas countries—children who are significantly disadvantaged or oppressed or who, more often than not in some cases, might not be able to survive if it were not for the ability of people to be able to adopt those children.This is a great initiative. I actually know there are a couple of families in Capricornia who have already drawn on the intercountry adoption process. I know that they are very proud Australians. We are a multicultural society and it is good to see that we interact so well in the community and that we have this ability to be able to work with other nations to ensure that this country develops to be one of the greatest nations in the world.21:13:005707Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—In drawing this debate to a conclusion, I thank the honourable members for Banks (Mr Melham), Fisher (Mr Slipper), Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) and Capricornia (Mr Marek) for their contributions and their support of the Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . Members may have been concerned about an article in today's press concerning the illegal traffic in domestic adoptions some years ago. This obviously brought anguish to the young women who gave up their babies in a time of different social attitudes.The legislation before us deals with intercountry adoption. It is proposed, under the legislation, to establish best practice in respect of such adoption, and the types of difficulties referred to in the article in today's media would not occur once the convention has been adhered to by Australia. Australia should be in a position to ratify the Hague convention as soon as the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties becomes available.The states and territories have agreed with the Commonwealth on the implementation arrangements for Australia's participation in the convention and are hopeful that the treaty can commence operation by 1 November this year. The states and territories will also be grateful for the amendments which provide for the automatic recognition of adoptions ordered in China, pursuant to the bilateral arrangement between the Australian states and territories and China. As soon as this legislation is in place, the bilateral arrangement with China can be completed and another avenue for adoption for Australian parents will become available. Both these developments provide the opportunity for significant numbers of Australian citizens to give children living in institutions overseas in participating countries a family environment in which to grow and prosper.The government is indebted to the opposition for the offer of facilitating a speedy passage through the Senate. On that basis it should be possible, all other things being equal, for the bill to be dealt with as a non-contentious bill later this week in the Senate.The member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) and the member for Capricornia (Mr Marek) referred to the desire of many Australian couples to adopt children. It is worth pointing out, as I did in my second reading speech, that there are currently approximately 300 adoptions each year from overseas. The number is limited because there are few bilateral arrangements in place. Ratification of the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption will open up opportunities for increased numbers of children to be adopted by Australian parents. Currently, 22 countries have adhered to the convention, and some of these are potentially large sources for intercountry adoption. The number of participating countries is expected to grow appreciably in the next few years, providing, we hope, even more opportunities for Australian couples to adopt children from overseas. This bill has the support of the whole House, so far as views have been made known, and I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5707Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Committees570857085708Debate resumed from 29 June, on motion by Mr Hawker:That the House take note of the report.21:19:005708Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—In concluding my remarks of yesterday, I would like to reiterate the importance of the competition policy and the work that the National Competition Council is doing. I would also like to remind honourable members that the work of this council came from the COAG meeting in 1995 when the Commonwealth, state and territory governments all agreed to the introduction of competition policy and its implementation. The current report builds on some of the work that the committee has already done, both with the major report, Cultivating competition , which was tabled last year, and the work it does with the ACCC.We have made a number of recommendations to the government, most of which have been taken up. The one we made in this current report, Review of the National Competition Council annual report 1996-97, was the importance of ensuring that the public is properly educated on the value of competition, how it is being implemented, where it is not being implemented and why it is not being implemented.I again thank all members of the committee for their support. It was a unanimous report and I think that the committee does work very well in a bipartisan way, and it does demonstrate how a standing committee of the parliament can achieve a lot of very good work which I believe does enhance the reputation of the parliament. I also thank the secretariat for their support, particularly Bev Forbes, Chris Paterson and all the others who support the Financial Institutions and Public Administration Committee. They certainly do put in a lot of hard work and, with their support, we are able to produce some excellent reports.This is my third time I have spoken on this report. I conclude with those few remarks and emphasise that the committee has made a recommendation and that we look forward to a positive response from the government.21:21:005708Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I certainly welcome this report, Review of the National Competition Council annual report 1996-97 , and the work of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration in reviewing the process of national competition policy in Australia. I should start by outlining my surprise that we have not got a conga line of National Party members lining up, based on their recent rhetoric, to outline the so-called evils of competition policy. Perhaps those National Party members are out making their latest name change. There is a nice sequence in this: Country Party, National Country Party, National Party, and now the simple name change to One Nation—if not by their choice, then perhaps by the people.They have been part of a process—somewhat common in the populism and demonisation now sweeping across Australian politics—to try to make competition a dirty word. I would pose the question: how else do you run a market based economy other than with competition? How do you make markets work without the discipline and the upgrading capacity of simple competition between corporations and, if need be, between government entities? This is a simple proposition: dogs bark, markets compete. There is no way of running a market based economy without the disciplines of competition.If that is not evident enough to those in this parliament, they should simply look elsewhere. Would anyone go to North Korea, with its policy of isolationism, and pretend that that is better for economic growth and potential than market based competition? The Hanson approach, of course, is a mirror reflection of North Korea, where there are people starving in the streets because they cannot generate the economic growth to feed their people. Would one go to Eastern Europe and ask any economist or public policy official, or indeed any citizen, whether central planning was a better way of running an economy than market based competition? All of these things have been tried and they have failed. One of the emerging truths for people on the social democratic side of politics is to give up on trying to replace market based competition with some other form of production, distribution and exchange. The social democratic task now is to civilise global capital to ameliorate the impact of globalisation on society, its cohesiveness and its basic community values. This is a project that social democrats can embrace. But to try to replace market based systems with some other form of production is effectively a distraction from the central goal of social democrats in a globalised economy.Markets have proven themselves to be an effective engine of growth, but we cannot pretend, of course, that markets always get it right. As a rule of thumb, I work on the assumption that markets get it right in the allocation of economic resources 60 to 70 per cent of the time. In some of the fundamentals of life in Australia, market based competition is the clearing house for consumer choice and lifestyle. We do not try to centrally plan supermarkets or food distribution in Australia, or the distribution of clothing. No-one would ever pretend that you need to replace market based competition on those fundamentals of life with some other form of production or distribution. But in those cases where markets get it wrong, where there are externalities, environmental and social, where markets have an undesirable impact on society and income distribution, an undesirable impact on culture and community, there is an active role for government to play. So on 30 to 40 per cent of occasions markets may fail and may require active government intervention to make corrections, to give society cohesiveness, to give strength to community values and to achieve a fairer distribution of income and social capacity.What should governments do in those interventions? The worst thing a government can do is to smother competition and create a dependency relationship with the private sector. In framing interventions, especially in a globalised economy, the worst thing government can do is to try and smother competition and create some form of dependency relationship with the corporate sector. We hear the other side of politics talking about these things with regard to social welfare. It is true that in a post-industrial society transfer payments without new skills and responsibilities ultimately hurt the recipients of social welfare. That is a truth that I think all sides of politics are now facing up to. Transfer payments without new skills and responsibilities ultimately create long-term welfare dependency, and that is undesirable.So, too, that principle applies when it comes to the corporate sector. Handouts to the corporate sector without the disciplines of market competition also ultimately hurt the recipients. I had a reminder of this when I was on a study tour in New Zealand, where a New Zealand metal manufacturer in Christchurch said to me, `Look, under the old regime, the policies of Muldoon and the like in New Zealand, there were protection, subsidies and regulation, and it was a licence to print money. Every time my company got into trouble, the government would bail me out. So I just relied on the government handouts, the government protection and the government subsidies to underscore my profit line and I did no innovation and no upgrading. I did not try to change my work practices and did not try to engage in outward strategies to expand my markets. I had a licence to print money from government.' That is a telltale sign of how you can smother the market mechanism with too much government intervention and protection. You do need certain disciplines in competition policy to make markets work.This manufacturer expressed to me his initial opposition to the changes in New Zealand policy in the 1980s, but they forced upon him and his business innovation, upgrading and change in work practices—all the things that make markets work. When I visited in 1995, that business was engaging in innovation, R&D on the factory floor, to produce a plastic engine for motorbikes. This is a long way from guaranteed government income and profit support: ambitious plans to try and build an innovative base for exports and manufacturing potential. Just as it can be argued that social welfare recipients propped up by long-term welfare dependency are suffering for that government policy, so too it can be argued that that applies just as much to the relationship between the public sector and the corporate sector.I would argue that, when it comes to social and business wellbeing, you need a soft heart but also a hard head. The hard head says that competition policy is a useful discipline in a market based economy. For the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and his fellow travellers around the backblocks of Queensland who say that is not the case, let them point to a place where some other system has worked better. They can never do it. Schumpeter, the economist, 100 years ago described this as creative destruction, and that is true.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—A hundred years ago?K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—Well, he was born a hundred years ago.BT4KEMPDr Kemp—He wrote in the forties.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAM—He might have been writing in the 1940s, but he was born a hundred years ago. He was an Austrian from that era. I think he was born around the same year that Marx died, in 1883. He was at school, hopefully prospering from better school policies in Austria in the 1880s than you are giving to Australia in the 1990s.Schumpeter described this process as creative destruction—markets can create a lot of wealth and economic opportunity but so too they can be disruptive of some of the fundamentals of a cohesive society. They can destroy some businesses and destroy some of the opportunities for a fairer distribution of income and social opportunity. This is where the active role for government comes into play. Earlier tonight I was at the Canberra branch of the Economics Society listening to Fred Argy give a precis of his new book. He provided what I thought was an outstanding way to consider the economic debate and the way this parliament should look at it now. That is basically to say that we are all economic liberals now. That was the message: we are all economic liberals now; it is just a matter of what sort of economic liberalism and market freedom we bring to bear.What Fred Argy said, I think quite perceptively, was that progressive economic liberals would believe in four things. The first was that markets, all other things being equal, are an effective way of allocating economic resources. Second, all other things being equal, competition policy is good. Third, markets fail and governments need to intervene in those circumstances. The fourth proposition is that markets produce poor distributional outcomes in society, again justifying government interventions.On the third and fourth points, with regard to market failure and distributional questions, the big challenge for social democrats is to work out what sort of interventions and distributional strategies are needed, as the movement of capital has gone from the national sphere to global arenas. There are new market circumstances and new policy requirements for social democrats wanting to do the government intervention well and wanting to bring fairer distributional outcomes to society.I sign up as a progressive economic liberal and I cannot see how anyone would believe in any other approach to economic matters or a report like this. Of course, there are some, led by the member for Goldstein (Dr Kemp) over here, who would be described within the Argy schema as a hard economic liberal. They do not believe that markets fail all that much and, even if they do, governments will not do much about it. Their final proposition is that the less government does the better off we will be.That approach, I believe, is ultimately destructive to our social fabric, ultimately unfair on the distribution of income and opportunity, and a recipe for individualism and social fragmentation. In any case, it is not proven that any of that hard economic liberalism that we might find from Dr Kemp is going to produce any better economic outcome than the more progressive approach. I think it is very important to understand these things. For those who use competition policy as some form of demon, some form of populist rhetoric—talking about the money power and the Depression in the 1930s—it is incumbent upon them to explain how, without the disciplines of competition in a market based economy, we can get any better result for this country.I have not heard any explanation among the utterings and murmurs of Bob Katter—I think he speaks on these things only if a television camera is in front of him—on the far right or the rantings of someone like Phil Cleary on the far left, or from the Hansonites or the Democrats, who have a unity ticket on economic policy, of what they would replace the current system with. They have no explanation because history and logic tell them that there is no superior system to the competition disciplines of the market based economy providing also for an active role for government.The active role for government is important, and I think it is changing. I have argued that in a dynamic, globally focused economy there can be consistency with a fair society. Important things need to be done on the distributional front, such as having a decent and indexed minimum wage, particularly in industries where there is very little opportunity for substitution between labour and capital. I have argued the importance of civil sector employment as a way of filling the gaps left on a spatial or a regional scale by the failings of the profit system. I have argued the importance of regional infrastructure and services.And the most important point in this debate—and why I think Australia has gone backwards—is that we can prepare people for change only by giving them new skills and new ways of acting and responding to the change process. This is the problem with the debate. I was listening to Bill Clinton on CNN, talking at the Beijing University. To think that you could describe him as a politician on the one hand and our Prime Minister (Mr Howard) as a politician is absolutely ridiculous—they are as different as chalk and cheese. The Prime Minister has driven Australia into a state of funk; no talk and no leadership about how people can prepare for change, just always the constant attempt to patch things up and try to hold over the political agenda until the next poll comes in and gives him a bit of respite. It is the work of a small person locked in the past.Clinton is always talking about preparing people for change, skilling them, giving them new opportunities and education, and making them understand that the only way we can respond in an era of uncertainty is to prepare people for change. In an era of permanent change, prepare for it, is the message that this government needs to give to the people of Australia. If it does not give that sort of message, we will stay in this state of funk, pessimism and depression; and every two-bit populist in town who wants to raise an issue and try to scare people will get a platform to do it because there is no leadership explaining the alternative. That is what has changed in Australia over the last two years. That is the thing that has fundamentally changed on the Australian political agenda. As reflected in government policy, this is not an administration that is prepared to invest in Australia's future by growing the national commitment to education, research and training.I want to conclude with a final point about political communication. I do not endorse what Bob Hogg is doing with that ridiculous campaign supporting the GST. He was talking about communication. There are some fools in the press gallery who get onto these things. Tim Colebatch in the Age today described the GST as the best option in tax reform. He was having a go at me not so long ago, saying that a progressive expenditure tax would fold because it could not be made progressive. His answer on progressive tax was a GST so I do not endorse Colebatch, who is an imbecile, and I certainly do not endorse what Bob Hogg is doing with his strategy in tandem with Singleton. But I think Bob Hogg is right in terms of the political debate and the national understanding of issues like competition policy. He said:I am sick of the fact that you can't have a dialogue in this country. Part of the reason for what is happening at the moment with the 20-odd per cent of dissent for One Nation showing up is that nobody's explaining. Forget this business of not talking and listening; that is just so much nonsense. People expect government to do things but they like to know why, what is the purpose and what is the long and short-term benefit of what they are doing. When you have a vacuum every bit of discontent, evil or otherwise, will congeal. It is the lack of debate on the public policy that is the real problem. I mean, if we can't have a debate about reforms, in the end when it's all over people can say, yes I can support that or no I can't. It's how democracy works. We've been denying it for a while. Part of democracy is about educating by debate and explaining. What's wrong with them, it's not guns we're talking about, it's ideas, for God's sake.If this government had any courage and any leadership, and propagated the right ideas and explanation to the Australian people about issues like competition policy, we would have the potential for strong, long-term economic growth, a dynamic market based economy with sufficient government interventions to do the things that also make our society fair. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Taylor) adjourned.57125712Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr Taylor:That the House take note of the report.21:37:005712Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—I want to make a few brief comments in the time available to me this evening in continuation of debate on the tabling of what is a very major report—the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the level of funding required for the defence of Australia. I am pleased that the opposition's defence spokesman, the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis), is in the House because I want to take the opportunity to say to him and to others in this place and beyond that this is a major report, which would not have been possible without a very strong dose of bipartisanship, with the exception of the predictable dissenting report by Senator Margetts. Senator Margetts very rarely says things that are pertinent to the Defence debate—other than rather ideologically driven issues—nevertheless, at the end of my contribution I want to come back to what she had to say because there is a modicum of truth in one or two things she has said in this report.There are only seven recommendations in this report. They are very important recom mendations. I would like to highlight two of them this evening. One is recommendation 4, which says:The Committee recommends that the mechanism of fixing a rate of real growth be adopted as a means of defining the increase in Defence spending.The second is recommendation No. 7, which says:The Committee is concerned about the substantial additional expenditure required to overcome block obsolescence in the 2010-2015 period.I hope the opposition spokesman on defence will lend his support to the reaction, albeit the interim reaction, from the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) in which he said that this report is a very useful input into the government's considerations. In particular he highlighted the substantial additional expenditure to overcome the block obsolescence of that major equipment. He went on to say that the government is very conscious of these pressures and, although Defence outlays as a percentage of GDP had fallen by 0.8 per cent—from 2.6 per cent to 1.8 per cent—under the previous government, the Howard government had committed itself to halt the decline and to hold Defence outlays at the levels set out in the 1995-96 budget. I feel sure that the opposition spokesman on defence will have something to say about that.On the issue of scrutiny: as somebody who has been involved in Defence matters for over three decades and in this parliament for another decade, I do not think there has been one department that has been more scrutinised inside and out than the Department of Defence. It often cops it with both barrels—to put it in military parlance—which at times I think is somewhat unjustified. However, I think over the last four or five years there have been a number of programs that have fallen well short of accountability and real accountability in public outlay terms. I will make mention of that when I come back to Senator Margetts's dissenting report.It is true that a lot of the scrutiny outside the Department of Defence continues, whether it is from the Department of Finance and Administration, from the National Audit Office or from this parliament. That is where this report I think serves a very functional purpose in the accountability chain. I am sure that the opposition spokesman on defence will have some comments to make on this as well.In terms of the block obsolescence and in relation to the fixing of a rate of around two per cent real growth in Defence funding, the report says in part:a significant number of things we would like to be able to do start to become possible under a line at about two per cent real growth in the Defence budget.That is what the Department of Defence said in their evidence. The report went on to say:12.17 From Defence's explanations of the difficulties it would face, even given two per cent real growth, the Committee was surprised at Defence claims that this level of increase would enable capabilities to be developed. A real growth of two per cent falls below the levels of funding claimed as necessary minimums in the 1987 and 1994 Defence White Paper's . . . It went on:12.18 The Department provided no objective evidence specifically supporting its calculation of the need for two per cent real growth, and was generally unforthcoming on such detail throughout the inquiry.It finished by saying:12.19 The Committee was left with the task of validating the increase required through use of other evidence. The need for planning to address the block obsolescence problem was accepted as the most compelling long-term factor. The F/A-18 replacement alone will require additional funding in the order of $5 to $12 billion, which Defence claims cannot be accommodated within long-term major capital investment planning. Allowance to make this sum available would require a real growth rate averaging between one and 2.5 per cent to the current Defence funding level, sustained over a decade. By including the requirement to replace the Adelaide class frigates, and to replace the F-111 in the longer term, a real growth rate significantly above 2.5 per cent would be required, and would need to be sustained across the longer term, to inject these estimated funding requirements into the Defence budget.I think that is a very salient section from the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee's report. Also in terms of the measure of Defence expenditure, the report says—and I think this is very pertinent to the argument: 2.41 The weight of arguments against defining Defence funding as a proportion of GDP or of Commonwealth Budget Outlays dictate that neither method should be used. Definition in terms of GDP or Commonwealth Budget Outlays produces a variable outcome subject to the external influences on those measures. Defence believes that:The most useful measure for quantifying the level of Defence funding is the real change to the [funding] base over time.That is what the committee has concluded. We put that forward to the minister for the cabinet consideration in due course. I think it will always be the case that a percentage of GDP and a percentage of Commonwealth outlays are measures of expenditure within the Defence portfolio. But what the committee recommended, in line with the views of the Department of Defence, is that we move to a more finite measure of Defence expenditure to reflect this real increase over a period of time.I want to come back to Senator Margetts's dissenting report. A lot of what Senator Margetts says in the defence arena is, in my view, very irrelevant. It is ideologically driven in the main. This particular dissenting report is, in many ways, no exception. However, I think both sides in this place should be concerned about the track record of some of the major projects in the defence arena. In her dissenting report, Senator Margetts highlights—and I have some sympathy with what she says—the Collins class submarine program and the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar network program. I noticed in the newspapers this morning that there is now a report of major problems with the gas turbine main propulsion in the Anzac class frigates.There is something wrong in the acquisition process. I would suggest that the solution lies with the Defence Acquisition Review Board. I think it was during the last sitting week that the shadow minister for defence and I had some briefings on the function of that review board. It may in many ways ameliorate some of the criticism of the Department of Defence, which is spending big bucks. There is no way around it—Defence has to be more accountable for these large amounts of money.There is no doubt that the Collins class submarines will be a major acquisition of and a major asset to the Australian Defence Force once some of the software problems and quality control aspects of that program are sorted out. The same goes for Jindalee. But I think that, until such time as the Department of Defence is able to put its hand on its heart and say, `We are totally accountable; we have this acquisition review process in place,' the department is reasonably open to some objective criticism.I am one of those who would objectively criticise some of these programs. I do not think it helps to unnecessarily attribute party political blame in relation to some of these projects. Yes, of course both sides from time to time bear the weight of the decisions that they take. The Collins decision was a good decision, in my view. Whilst we could criticise the opposition's decision on that program now, in the short term I do not think it helps the overall defence debate if we have a preoccupation with criticising things that happened in the past. I think we have to look forward and be positive in terms of some of these programs.I make the point once again that this is a major report, although it is a relatively small report. I congratulate Senator David MacGibbon and the whole committee for bringing it together in a relatively short period of time. It is appropriate that the government be given the points that are made in this report in a timely fashion, and I think that has been done. The arguments that are mounted in it are objective. We should congratulate both sides of the House on the strong, bipartisan nature of the recommendations. I hope that what it says will not fall on deaf ears. This government has done a lot on defence in a short time. The opposition spokesman may have a contrary view when he gets on his feet. Nevertheless, we have had the defence efficiency review. We have now got the ongoing defence reform program. We have had a strategic review. All that cannot be bad. Nevertheless, the proof of the defence pudding will be in the eating thereof. I hope that the government will take this report very seriously and agree in general terms with the thrust of the recommendations.21:50:005714Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I join with the member for Groom (Mr Taylor) and others in this debate in encouraging both the House and the public to take up this report and have a close look at it. It is a welcome and valuable contribution to an important debate: the national security of Australia, its people and its primary interests.It is, I suspect, the first occasion—it is certainly a rare occasion—on which a bipartisan committee of the parliament has sat down to look at the level of resources required by the Australian Defence Force in order to defend our nation properly. It is a pity, in many ways, that the focus on this parliament is usually a 90-second or 60-second grab out of question time. The work of committees like this one and reports like this are earnest and genuine efforts on a bipartisan basis to look at most serious questions. It is a pity that these things attract the attention of few, if any, in the press gallery and probably only a few in the defence community itself. Parliamentary committees are where so much of the important work of members of parliament is undertaken.The report makes a series of recommendations about the way in which we should gauge the levels of funding required. The member for Groom has referred to that, so I will not go over that ground, other than to say that I think the report's recommendations are very sound in that respect. The report has the limitation that the committee took evidence and worked assiduously with the support of one specialist person, one support staff member, from Defence. The committee looked in some detail at what funding was required for the Australian Defence Force for the next four to five years, and then it looked at projected funding for a decade beyond that period. We did that with one specialist support person. The Department of Defence has about 120 people trying to do the same task.Obviously, with those limitations it is not possible to come up with a definitive answer. I do not think the committee purports to have produced a definitive answer to what is required for Australia's defence, but it has made a damn good effort at it. The report identifies a number of important areas that require further attention, and it has given its best effort in saying, `This is the sort of money the country needs to look at if it is to maintain the necessary defence capability that is important for our nation as we move into the 21st century.'I want to address a couple of concerns that I as shadow minister for defence have and I want to take the opportunity to set a few of the historical facts straight. In the 1996 election, the then Liberal-National coalition opposition undertook to quarantine defence spending from any cuts. That was widely understood in the broad community, and I have got to say it was understood in the defence community, to mean the amount of money that was given to Defence in the 1995-96 budget would not be cut. That is actually not what happened, and if you read the fine print it was not what they promised to do.In fact, what occurred was that the 1996-97 budget, the first Howard-Costello budget, cut defence spending by a half of one per cent—a $50 million cut in real terms was made in that budget. What the government really meant to tell the people of Australia at that time was that they would not cut the forward estimate of defence spending; they would not keep defence spending at the level it had been in 1995-96—that is what they were not going to do—in spite of the interpretation that the public put on it.Over the course of the last two years that has been bandied around by the spin doctors. Finally, after the budget this year, the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) put out a press release that made it very clear that the Howard government had spent exactly the same amount of money on defence since it came to office as the Labor government was intending to do. And that is true. It needs to be understood as a matter of fact that the total outlays on defence are no different under both the Labor government and the coalition government.It also needs to be put straight on the record that in the 13 budgets during Labor's period in office, contrary to a popular belief that there was some wind back in defence spending, the opposite is the case. Over that period there was a very substantial increase in real terms. If you look at those 13 budgets, you will find that in five of those budgets there was what is referred to as zero real growth. That is, the Defence budget was actually increased in dollar terms but increased to match the rising costs that Defence had to meet. I avoid reference to the CPI because Defence has its own calculation for adjustments, but in five of those budgets there was actually an increase to ensure that Defence maintained the real spending value of its dollar. On four occasions there was a cut and on four occasions there was an increase. If you look over the period, there was a substantial increase.I too was disappointed at the reluctance of the Department of Defence to provide detailed advice on actual dollars and to give the committee its confidence. It was like extracting teeth at those hearings we had with people from Defence, seeking to get from them their best advice on what they believed was required for the defence of Australia. It really was like extracting teeth. I can understand their reluctance, the way the system works, as it were. We do not have parliamentary committees that operate in the same sense as American congressional or senate committees and we have an executive style of government.But I thought it was a golden opportunity missed by Defence to use that forum to explain what they regarded as the necessary resources to take us into the 21st century. They should have known, if they did not, that there was a genuine sense of goodwill on the part of members of the committee to look at this matter properly and responsibly and in a bipartisan way to try to raise the debate within this parliament and in the community.Having said all that, as shadow minister I cannot resist the opportunity to make a few points about the situation as it has unfolded in the last two years. A series of shortcomings and shortages and, in my view, poor decisions have been taken during the last couple of years. Some of those are more glaring than others. Some of them excite the journalists more than others. But you would have to put at the top of the lists in most of the categories the circumstance that developed last year where the Land Command was instructed to cut $16 million from its ammunition allocation to our defence forces. As a result of that, we had units all around the country, including in Darwin, in Townsville, right through Queensland and in the southern states, that did not have any allocation of particular types of ammunition—a zero allocation. It was across a wide range of armaments: small arms as well as artillery, armour—the full range of army weaponry.We had units which in the previous year were not able to train people to be proficient on weapons in the 1996-97 financial year being told that they would not have any ammunition at all. So they would go for two years without training people on weapons. It is a disgrace that that should be so. The fact that it is so has been acknowledged in Senate estimates hearings. In those hearings the Department of Defence people said the government set about overcoming that problem not by rearranging the money to fix the problem at its source but by using our war stocks for training purposes. So during the last year we have run down our war stocks just so that basic proficiency training on a series of weapons could be achieved in our units across the country. That is a deplorable situation. With an election looming, I doubt that we will have another set of Senate estimates, but I am still waiting to see what the wash-up of all of that is.But worse than the ammunition shortage is the shortage of people. In 1996, when we lost office, there were 58,000 permanent uniform people—air force, navy and army combined. I can recall the attacks from members of the Liberal and National parties about what a terrible thing it was that we had reduced Australia's defence forces down to 58,000 people. That was seen as a very low level for which we were criticised up hill and down dale by the conservatives. What did they do when they got into office? In the last two years, they have taken that 58,000 and reduced it to 54,000. What are they going to do in the next two years? If they get the opportunity, the Howard government are going to reduce that 54,000 to about 49,000.Two years ago we were lambasted because 58,000 was far too small a force to defend Australia, and today we find a government that intends to take it to 49,000. If 58,000 was not enough to do the job two years ago, I am yet to hear the reasoning from anyone on the government benches as to how 49,000 is going to do the trick. They really have been caught hoisted on their own petard. I can assure you that their argument two years ago is going to come back and haunt them chronically in the next couple of months as we lead into an election.One of the other things that needs to be recognised is that their answer to this funding dilemma has been a defence efficiency review and now the defence reform program—the DRP. One of the things that I have watched with some interest out of that is the proposals for base closures. Everywhere there has been an argument about base closures, the minister or the local member—who invariably is a government member—ends up saying, `No, this base isn't going to close.' That is fine, except that, as I go around the countryside, the list of bases that were identified by the DER as up for closure just gets ticked off—`No, that one is not going to be closed and the next one is not going to be closed'—but the minister still goes around talking about the money he is saving by closing the bases and the extra money he is going to have to spend on other things because the bases have been sold. You can have it one way or the other, but you cannot have both. You cannot actually say, `We're not going to sell the bases,' and then the next day say, `This is where we are going to spend the money from the sale.' Make up your mind: have one or the other.All of this has produced a chronic morale problem in the services, and I do not say that in a partisan sense although, I guess, there is a partisan overtone to it. I have said in this House on a number of occasions that the morale in the Australian defence forces is chronically low—to the point where I think it injures the capacity of the services to do the job. I get worried when I talk to people of all ranks and of varying years of service—going right through to people who have had 20-plus years in the services—who say that the morale in the services today is the worst they have ever known it. That is a major issue that needs to be confronted. There are a whole lot of reasons for that. I do not have time to touch on them here, but I will do my best to touch on them between now and the election.I want to make a quick comment about submarines, Anzac frigates and JORN. There have been problems with those. I was interested to listen to the comments of the member for Groom. I think he put a very modulated and responsible view of that. I would simply say that, in each of those cases, I think we will acquire—and in many ways have already acquired—very important assets for the defence of Australia. It is a bit of a sport to knock these things. It does not matter who is in government or who is in opposition, everyone tends to play that sport. I just provide this word of caution: if we want to establish a degree of self-reliance and we want to establish an Australian domestic industry capable of producing that self-reliance for us, you do not do it by knocking what are leading edge technologies.Yes, there are problems with JORN. One of the reasons for that is that we are inventing a new technology. If you talk to people who are involved in this science in the United States, they will tell you that what we have here in Australia is better than what they have. This country is leading the world. When you are inventing a new technology—not changing someone else's or buying it off the shelf—there are set-backs and there are leaps and bounds. What we have done with the submarines is outstanding. Many of the things that have been written in the press about that are factually untrue, and it concerns me that both defence ministers, but particularly the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop), do not combat those. She fuels the fire with the sorts of comments she made about `rust buckets', `floating tubs' and `floating targets'. Those sorts of comments from ministers in positions of responsibility are unhelpful.The final thing I would like to mention very quickly is the expenditure bulge. One thing we all have to know out of this debate—and it does not matter who is in government—is that somewhere between 2005 and 2015 this country will have a major defence bill to face. The sooner this parliament starts debating it, understanding it and addressing it and the sooner the community understands it, the better that will be for the nation. (Time expired)22:05:005717Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I would like to correct the record of the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis). He is condemned by his own words in so much that he said right at the outset that this government followed the same forward estimates as presented by the last Labor government. I will restate that: we have, dollar for dollar, provided the same money as was put in the forward estimates by the Labor government. There is no disputing that.Having that amount of dollars that the Labor government was about to allocate to defence, he has said that there have been ammunition shortages and cases where units have gone without live firing practices, et cetera. That is not denied. I would like to know what he anticipated doing about it when they were in government when they allocated insufficient funds. That is on the back of savings which have been made within defence itself. There has been a rationalisation of defence. There has been an emphasis on putting soldiers, airmen and sailors back at what was commonly known as the sharp end.It is one thing to say we have 56,000 soldiers one day and 49,000 a few years later, but it is all about capability. There is absolutely no point running 13 players onto a football team if half of them are lame. All 13 of them have to be fit, have to be well trained and have to be working as a cohesive team if they are to have any opportunity of winning. When in government, the Labor Party seemed to be of the impression that, if you have soldiers in uniform, that was good enough for the defence of Australia. It simply is not true.The member for Brisbane also spoke about morale. I would like to take you back to when I was in the defence forces under a Labor government. I was a trainer. I was a platoon commander in depot company at the infantry centre. We had soldiers there who came to us to be trained as young infantry men after 11 weeks of recruit training. I would have three M60 machine guns between a section of 10 men to train them. Three between 10 just does not go. Those machine guns did not work. Soldiers would be charged for having what is known as `unauthorised discharges' when machine guns went off when they were not supposed to without explanation. The reason they did so was because the parts were worn. There was not sufficient funding in defence at the time, even at that lowest level. Forget about the major defence procurement programs; we are talking about the level at which lives are actually saved.The main thrust of my speech tonight will be about the safety of our soldiers, our airmen and our women in the services. If we do not put sufficient funding into defence, we put at risk the lives of those people who have put their lives on the line for Australia. I would really appreciate it, if the member for Brisbane is going back to his office, if he listened to what I have to say. I am not saying that you are running out of the chamber, Arch; I know full well you are not. But go and have a listen. The fact is that by your own words, having said what you put into the forward estimates, you have already condemned yourself. You never left enough money in Defence; you never put enough money in Defence for each of the 13 years you were in government; and in the out years that are still to come, you never allocated enough.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Our year of lowest spending was higher than any year of your spending.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Okay, let us get to the facts.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—And the honourable member for Longman will direct his remarks through the chair.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not a problem. In 1987, just before I left the army, the last exercise I attended was Exercise Diamond Dollar. I managed to get your attention for a couple of minutes, Arch. The fact is that this exercise, the largest defence exercise for the year for Australia, ground to a halt, with troops sitting next to their tracks. We had no air hours; no track time. And who should come in? Ros Kelly, Ms Whiteboard herself. She flew in to see an exercise that was not happening.The member for Brisbane talks about morale. I will tell you what destroys the morale of Defence Force personnel: when they do not feel they have anybody behind them, supporting them. It is not about how much they get paid. This is not a job; this is a lifestyle. This is a commitment that these people have—and that is what has made our defence forces great over many decades. But when they go on an exercise, they are away from their families, doing it tough, training so that they can defend our country. Then they are told, `It is half-time, so sit on your backsides and do nothing. The government has no money.' That destroys morale.I got out of the army at a time when officers of my rank and majors were leaving the army in the greatest numbers ever; in epidemic proportions. The previous Labor government did nothing about it. The member for Brisbane talks about outlays. In this report, one of the recommendations is that there should be some form of long-term commitment, a five-year commitment, to defence so that personnel can have some certainty.The fact is that Defence would get spending and outlays for one year and then be told—this is before forward estimates came into play—what it would be given the next year. It would then do its budgetary figures on that. It would plan its training, its maintenance, its personnel matters and its acquisitions.But the problem is that, in all the years Labor was in government, not once did it exceed what it said it would put out. Its financial guidance for Defence in its first year was minus 1.7 per cent. Australia has just gone through a hell of a lot of heartache, and that has been because of a two per cent restriction of our expenditure in general. Defence went through a 1.7 per cent restriction on what it had been told it would receive compared with what it had received in its first year; 1.6 per cent in its second year; 4.2 per cent in its third year; 4.1 per cent in its fourth; 0.5 in the fifth; and one per cent, two per cent and one per cent for the remaining years.Finally, when the then government decided that it was not going to waste any more money on defence, it then actually met its commitments. It cut defence spending in 1993-94 and retained its commitment; it cut defence spending in 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and met its commitments.This government retained defence spending in a period when we had a $10 billion black hole to fix. I am a very strong advocate for an increase in Australia's defence budget; it must increase. If it does not, we are putting at risk the safety of every soldier, sailor and airman who trains for the defence of our country.I turn now to the role of the public. The public come to me and say, `You've taken our guns away; we can't defend Australia.' Those days are well and truly gone. If those members of the public are serious about defending Australia, they should demand of the Labor Party or the Liberal-National Party—or any other party—that they increase defence spending and that they retain their commitments to Defence so that personnel can have some certainty in the out years.This report recommends that there be certainty for a period of five years. It is no good saying to Defence, `This is what you're going to get over the next five years,' and then not delivering. Let us put it in very stark terms. In 1986, the government of the day made a decision to purchase the first lot of Black Hawk helicopters—14, I believe. As part of that, Defence was then told what the defence expenditure was to be in the out years. For that, Defence had to allocate money for the training of pilots, the training of the crew on the ground, maintenance and spare parts. It is well documented that the spare parts for the Black Hawk were never available.What I am alluding to here is that, if we do not supply certainty to Defence, we put at risk the lives of the people whom we depend upon when our lives are at risk. If you get a new piece of equipment, you are told that it will cost you, say, $50 million to maintain the equipment, to have an adequate standard of training and to ensure that the spare parts are there. You build that into the estimates that the government of the day provides you, only to have it ripped away because the money is not actually given to you. So who loses out? I will tell you who loses out: it is the bloke who is out there who has to man the piece of weaponry, the ship, the aircraft, or whatever else it happens to be, because he does not have the air time, or whatever is required, to maintain the standard he needs to have.That is a responsibility that politicians have to bear upon their shoulders. We must take some responsibility for what happened with the Black Hawk helicopter disaster. Also, we must ensure that this style of exercise, which is there to defend Australia, is able to be maintained through proper defence spending.The member for Brisbane also alluded to the fact that Defence let itself down during this particular report, and I believe that is 100 per cent correct. It seems that Defence has some reason whereby it has to protect the ability of individuals to deal with the funds they have. For goodness sake, can't we admit for once that Defence does not have enough money, that this country needs more money to be put into Defence? Can't we convince the population that this is money well spent?When we do not spend the money that is needed, we find that morale collapses and that trained personnel that have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to a proficiency level leave the defence forces. When that happens, it puts the burden back onto the taxpayer to start to repopulate defence. That is a slow process, an expensive process and one that we can ill-afford. It is also important that we maintain a credible Defence Force because, if we are ever in the unfortunate position to be attacked or required to go to the defence of our nation offshore, we are going to need the assistance of our allies. If we are not able to train with them in such a way that we are relevant, then they will simply forget all about us in times of training, and we can be assured that that will flow through to times of greater need. We have to be a relevant force in this Pacific region. We have to be able to interact with other defence forces, and to do that we must maintain a defence budget which is credible.The opposition made no bones about it: they cut defence spending overall because we were not able to maintain a credible force with a high morale, with people being able to use weapons efficiently and in a sufficient number of times to ensure that their levels of proficiency were maintained. This did not happen in 1997 or 1998. This has been happening for 15 years and perhaps even longer. We do need to upgrade defence. We do need to have a bipartisan position on this. We need to get away from squabbling. We need to say to the defence chiefs, `Regardless of who is in government, you are going to have a real increase in your defence spending of at least 1.5 to 2.5 per cent each year,' and we cannot afford to renege on that because we do so at our own great peril.The defence forces of Australia are well renowned for their great attitude. These people are the ones that put their lives on the line. We as parliamentarians owe it to them to ensure that they have the resources, the ammunition, the training time and the spare parts so that their commitment can be fully realised. If we do not do that, then we are letting down our defence forces in time of peace. The old adage that you are what you train and what you do in the training paddock you take onto the field is every bit as applicable, I am sure, when it comes to defence.I had a warrant officer once tell me—one of my first company sergeant majors—that during training for Vietnam they did not have blank firing attachments. This is a piece of equipment that allows a self-loading rifle to fire every time you squeeze the trigger. When initiating ambushes in training, he was forced to recock the rifle as though it were a bolt action. When he got into his first ambush in Vietnam, he did what he did in training. He fired his first round, he then recocked the rifle and fired another round and recocked it. His section commander gave him a clip over the ear at the end of it and said, `What the hell do you think you were doing?' The man simply did what he had been doing in training.There are lessons in this for all of us. If we are going to ensure that our Defence Force maintains the high standard and the high level of attitude and commitment that it has, and the recognition that it has had around the world for being one of the best trained armies in the world, we are not going to be able to singularly rely upon those people's commitment. The rest of Australia must show its commitment by saying that our defence forces need considerable funds; that the $10 billion that is currently allocated is insufficient. We must ensure that the planners within Defence have the certainty to know that, from one year to another, they can rely on the money that has to come in to produce that same high level of training. That will maintain morale; that will maintain the standard of training that will take us into the next century.Finally, I would like to comment quickly on the area of major procurements, because there are two time frames which are important to Defence. They have a five-year plan for force structure development. This is really maintaining the established capacity, whether it is replacing the M113 APC with some new piece of equipment or replacing the SLR with the Steyr, which was done in my time. Replacement programs for known obsolescence. The funding that we have in Defence is built into that, but there is also the strategic force development over 10 years where we have to look out and say, `What capabilities is Australia going to need to meet our defence forces' requirements?'It is not good enough for politicians to simply say that we have put more money in than the previous government or the previous year. As the member for Brisbane and the member for Groom (Mr Taylor) have said, we have some major capital equipment programs coming up over the next 15 years. They must be dealt with separately over and above the operating expenses that Defence have. I commend this report to the House. I hope that all parties take up the recommendations in it; that for the best interests of this nation we maintain a bipartisan approach to defence in the future; that we stop political point scoring and looking to the past; that we look to the future with credibility, with enthusiasm and with the best interests of Australia in our hearts. Debate (on motion by Mr Latham) adjourned.57215721Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Mr Andrews:That the House take note of the report.22:21:005721Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—I have pleasure in addressing the report To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships prepared by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I would formally like to thank my fellow members of the committee, in particular, Kevin Andrews and Rob McClelland, for their time and dedication. In the following few minutes I would like to speak to five of the recommendations. In total, there were 55 recommendations made in the report. They highlight the main direction of the report towards providing greater education and counselling services and placing greater emphasis on their value for couples entering a marriage relationship. This is a complex and diverse issue where no one cause or factor can be attributed as the most significant or important reason for a marriage breakdown.The government has supported marriage and family life through its family services program for the past four decades and continues this concern and support as highlighted by the following recommendations. The committee recommended a national strategy to strengthen marital relationships through programs of preventive education; that family relationships service programs clearly recognise in their objectives the funding mechanisms of the programs for prevention; that the emphasis on marital relationships remain the focus of marriage and relationships education programs; marriage and relationship education relate to the three life transition events—namely, marriage, the birth of the first child and separation or repartnering. The committee also concludes that the system of funding the marriage and relationships education program reveals major inequities and recommends that it be rectified as a matter of urgency.The development of marriage education in Australia has evolved as a convergence of educational, psychological and behavioural ideas. These ideas include emerging concepts of adult education, the notion that relationship skills can be learned, an understanding of some of the processes occurring in relationships and the theory that life involves a number of stages or transitions that people generally go through.The development of pre- and post-marital education programs stems from different theories of psychological and behavioural studies. In an early work of marriage enrichment in the US in 1983, Diana Garland identified major approaches to supporting the marriage programs. Firstly, in essence, these theories emphasise teaching skills that couples can use to develop awareness of their patterns of interactions and to modify these patterns with changes in one another and their environment. Secondly, they emphasise the skill of being able to communicate with a partner with acceptance and understanding, to recognise feelings and motivations and to be able to express them clearly. Thirdly, they address the basic principles of learning as a consequence of positive and negative reinforcement. Finally, in a `church based' approach, Garland highlighted the importance of learning to satisfy basic needs, which should continue to grow by developing creativity and unused potential.In Australia, most programs offered by marriage and family agencies tend to have been developed from a combination of Garland's four categories, but with less emphasis being placed on the final `church based' theory. The majority of Australia's marriage and relationship educational services target couples before marriage due to the philosophy of prevention that has been taken to be the most effective measure for reducing marriage and relationship breakdowns.A fundamental core of marriage education is the understanding of the transitions that couples experience in their lives—namely, living together, marriage, having children and the maturation of the children. All these transitions represent periods of change characterised by specific tasks and challenges. Research demonstrates that couples experience more difficulties and are more vulnerable to the development of stress during these critical periods. Coupled with this is the importance of understanding differing family backgrounds. Increasingly, it is recognised that different attitudes, ideas and behavioural patterns that were developed within the couple's respective families are brought into the relationship and can serve as the source of further difficulties.It is this awareness of marriage and relationships that has brought the committee to endorse its first five recommendations. Statistically, Australia has a 43 per cent divorce rate, with 52,500 couples divorcing in 1996. The central focus, therefore, of any marriage and relationship education scheme is towards prevention and, as such, targets premarital couples.Acknowledging and supporting the ongoing and, indeed, the increasing need for marriage and relationship education programs, the committee also analysed the distribution of Commonwealth funding available for the maintenance of such schemes. It found that Commonwealth funding per participant ranged from a low of $7.80 to a high of $1,048.33. This variation in funding was found unacceptable. Similarly, the Commonwealth funding to agencies per course hour was revealed to range from $23 to $900. It is the committee's view that the system of funding is grossly inadequate and fundamentally flawed and that a new transparent and service delivery based funding scheme for marriage and relationships education should be implemented forthwith.The issue of relationships and marriage in Australia is a serious one which potentially has the capacity to weaken Australia's healthy family unit, values and security. The recommendations made in this report are well founded and directed, and I strongly recommend their implementation.Debate (on motion by Mr Brereton) adjourned.Adjournment5722Motion (by Mr Cadman) proposed:That the House do now adjourn. 572222:28:005722Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am very pleased to report that I was at the Filipino multipurpose centre at Rooty Hill in my electorate to celebrate 100 years of independence of the Republic of the Philippines. I was very pleased to be joined by John Aquilina, the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs; the Mayor of Blacktown; Councillor Charlie Lowes; my state parliamentary colleague Jim Anderson, the member for Saint Marys; the present member for Londonderry; and the member for Greenway, Frank Mossfield, and his wife. It was really great to join in those particular celebrations. I notice the Chairman of the Philippines-Australian Parliamentary Friendship Group is in the House and I am sure he would join me in expressing our best wishes to all Filipinos.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Hear, hear!QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—I draw the House's attention to a speech the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) gave at the Victorian Immigration Advice and Rights Centre on Wednesday, 10 June. In particular, on page 3 of that speech, he said:When the Government came to office, the onshore application rate was increasing. The number of Protection Visa applications had increased from around 500 per annum in the 1980s to around 11,000 per annum. Many of these applications are from nationals of countries where there is little or no persecution—And he cited the Philippines as one of the culprits. If Filipinos in my electorate are guilty, I believe that they are really victims more than guilty parties. The people that I really believe the minister should have targeted are what I describe as unscrupulous migration agents, who either get these people to sign blank forms and submit them, knowing that they have no chance of success, or solicitors who act as business migration agents and even unofficial migration agents. They know full well when they ask for not hundreds of dollars but several thousands of dollars to be handed over that these applica tions have no chance of success. The point I want to make is: what is the minister doing about this most unscrupulous practice? Indeed, I am really concerned that he is about to abolish what limited supervision we have by way of a board and replace it with self-regulation.I stress that the Filipinos are so desperate to settle in this country that if it is suggested to them that they pay over several thousand dollars and that this will lead them to being able to stay, they are more than happy to do it. I believe that they are being fleeced. This brings no credit on anyone. I call on the minister for immigration to give us the figures on these applications and how many of them are being submitted by migration agents as opposed to individuals.When people come to my office, like every other member, I do not charge them one dollar. I would like to think that all members would do as I or my staff do in relation to these matters, which is to be brutally frank and honest with people about the stringent requirements for protected visa status. I am always very reluctant to submit applications that I believe have little chance of success. But we always tell them. The thing that really sticks in my craw is that once these agents have the money, they refer them to federal members of this House in order to pursue it once the inevitable rejection has come through. It is time that Philip cleaned up the agents rather than getting stuck into Filipinos.572322:33:005723Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your consideration. I want to address a group of Australian heroes this evening. I want to tell a very sombre and tragic story of a family in Parramatta whose home backs onto one of the little creeks and tributaries that flow into the Parramatta River in North Rocks. On Good Friday this year, as you may recall, there was a tremendous deluge around Sydney. The creeks were flooded well beyond anything that might be typical or normal. Two sons of the Hale family went down playing in the backyard as the creek swelled up. The youngest son, Ryan Hale, fell into the creek. He was 11 years old. His older brother tried to fish him out, but was unsuccessful. He saw him rushing down the creek. He raced up the hill and got the boys' father, who came down and, likewise, leapt into the creek to try to recover his son. But the force of the water was such that they lost sight of him. It was assumed, as it turned out, correctly, that he had perished.The whole community mobilised trying to find this boy, Ryan Hale. I recall being woken up early by my young son on the Sunday morning following Good Friday. I went down to Lake Parramatta at about 6 a.m. I found all the surrounds of Lake Parramatta were dotted with the orange overalls of the State Emergency Service. Many had been in the immediate search area for 36 hours without a break. I was put into one of the flat bottomed boats with the SES and the police, who were coordinating the search. We went up the river. It was one of the most poignant and distressing moments of my time as a parliamentarian to find the boys' father in a kayak paddling up and down the river looking for his son. Dozens of the SES were combing backwards and forwards along the river bank in the hope, one in a thousand, perhaps, that the boy might have been thrown unconscious out of the river and may be found somewhere in the bushes. As it turned out, they did recover young Ryan Hale's body later on that Sunday.I was deeply impressed by the commitment and the quality of those SES volunteers. At the funeral the family requested, instead of flowers, donations to the SES, which purchased a flat bottomed boat, soon to be christened the Ryan H. The SES Parramatta is run by a bloke named Alex Zotos. He is a good member of the Australian Labor Party and a very committed Australian making a difference. He is supported by his two deputy controllers, George Dahmanjis and Steve Clarke, and a communications officer, Steve Anderson.I was with Steve Anderson on the weekend when the Carlingford-Dundas Lions Club handed over a cheque for $3,000 to support the work of the SES. Steve was at a luncheon at Old Government House with us for the occasion. He was unshaven. He apologised because he had just returned from five days at Lake Macquarie following the tremendous storms that they had there towards the end of last week. The SES took over 800 calls around Lake Macquarie and over 2,000 around Maitland and Newcastle. Steve said to me that it was fortunate that he happened to have five days leave accrued when he got the call. I felt it was a tremendous example of unselfishness that he would spend those five days pulling trees out of the homes of people as far away as Lake Macquarie when so many others would, like myself, have taken the time off to rest and recuperate.The Parramatta SES is in desperate need of resources. They have a yearly budget of $100,000. They get less than about $30,000 from government sources. I said to Alex Zotos, `Where do you get the rest?' He said, `Ross, you know me. I am a Greek. I scrounge, I borrow, I do whatever I have to.' He is a great Australian. I call on the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan), if possible, to help out with surplus water bottles, belts and backpacks. I call on all Australians to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the men and women in the orange overalls.572422:37:005724Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—On 10 September 1996, the member for Oxley, Pauline Hanson, infamously declared Australia was in danger of being swamped by Asians. Last Sunday she gave us a preview of her immigration policy with the call for compulsory English tests for all migrants. This is a key policy for One Nation. According to Mrs Hanson, no-one should migrate to Australia unless they speak English. This would involve a compulsory test with no exceptions. A migrant wanting to bring to Australia his or her elderly parents who do not speak English would not be able to do so. Overseas born spouses who do not speak English would be excluded. Refugee status would apparently be granted only to English speakers.These proposals have been rightly condemned. They are a disgraceful slur on the hundreds of thousands of Australians who have come here from overseas with little or no English and have gone on to help build this country's vibrant multicultural society. These proposals need to be considered in the historical context—the White Australia of old, for that is where Mrs Hanson would take this country. That is where Australia is perceived overseas to be going, especially in Asia where past perceptions of a racially exclusive Australia have been given new life.Eighty-seven years ago, what became the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 was the very first bill introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament. The legislative backbone of White Australia, that act did not explicitly discriminate against any race or group of people. Instead it established the `dictation test' through which `any person [who] when asked to do so by an [immigration] officer failed to write out at dictation and sign . . . a passage of fifty words in length in a European language' was deemed to be a prohibited migrant.This was a test designed to be failed. Any European language could be used. If an Asian migrant could speak English, French or German, they could always be tested in Scottish Gaelic. It was a test designed to ensure that non-European migrants could not settle in Australia, and for nearly 60 years this administrative mechanism bolted Australia's doors against Asian migrants.The language test proposed by Mrs Hanson might not be the dictation test of old, but the intention is exactly the same. What One Nation proposes is an ostensibly non-discriminatory test which would, in effect, be highly discriminatory—a test which, in the context of a much smaller migrant intake, would reduce Asian immigration to a trickle. It would be a new administrative wall to keep Asians out; it is as simple as that. One Nation wants to go back to White Australia, a country that no longer exists, a country to which we will never return.All this would be laughable if it were not for the conspicuous failure of the Prime Minister, John Howard, to unambiguously confront Pauline Hanson by ensuring that all elements of the Liberal and National parties put One Nation last on their how-to-vote cards. Pauline Hanson would still be powerless were it not for John Howard's carefully coded messages of comfort and support to One Nation, and it is John Howard's failure that has so damaged regional perceptions of Australia over the past two years.Our neighbours' worst suspicions about the White Australia of old, the country which applied the dictation test so rigorously, have been revived, to the detriment of our engagement with Asia. Australia has been pilloried in the regional press. The Hong Kong Standard has warned of the rise of One Nation, confirming fears that Australia is `headed back to its much maligned White Australia policy'. The South China Morning Post has highlighted the dangers of Australia returning to `institutionalised restraints and bigotry'. The Bangkok Post has accused John Howard of tolerating a `white supremacist'.This is what is being said about Australia in the region where our future security and prosperity lies. Pauline Hanson and John Howard have undone 30 years of painstaking work to bury regional perceptions of White Australia, and worse may follow. Even with a half Senate election, we face the likelihood of the Senate being held hostage for the next six years by One Nation. Nor will John Howard rule out trying to govern with One Nation's support in the House of Representatives, with all the trade-offs that would involve in respect of immigration policy, indigenous affairs and, indeed, the core values of our multicultural society.Honourable members would do well to note the recent editorial in the Singapore Straits Times which, after referring to John Howard's `indecent eagerness to bestow respectability' on Mrs Hanson, concludes:If Mr Howard prefers the politics of opportunism . . . that is his privilege. But he should be under no illusion regarding the reaction of Australia's neighbours or the price that the Australian economy might have to pay.The Prime Minister's colleagues would do well to reflect upon this.572522:42:005725Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I would like to draw to the attention of the House the plight of some elderly and vulnerable women in my electorate who, with others in Sydney, are the victims of some dubious practices by Vasey Homes. Recently four courageous residents of the Vasey Housing Village in Lane Cove, all war veterans or the wives of war veterans, came to see me with a desperate plea for help. The residents' concerns ranged from vote rigging to unconscionable conduct, including intimidation by Vasey management.Vasey Housing Association was established by Mrs Jessie Vasey many years ago to provide low-cost housing for ageing war widows and ex-servicewomen. Over the years the association has maintained the aims and objectives of Mrs Vasey by providing housing complexes around Australia, including six villages for 300 women in Sydney at Lane Cove, Waitara, Hunters Hill, Epping, Concord and Maroubra. Naturally enough, the residents are amongst the most elderly and frail in our community, with the ages of my local residents ranging from 79 to 92 years of age.How did Jessie Vasey's vision become an organisation that holds dodgy secret ballots, breaks written agreements and feels that it can walk all over these defenceless women? Up until 19 February of this year, when a new budget was put to residents for a vote, Lane Cove Vasey was a peaceful and serene place in which to live. However, this new budget changed peoples lives by recommending a massive increase in maintenance costs for pensioners.Previously all votes were taken by a show of hands. On this occasion the association held a so-called secret ballot. It was a secret ballot where residents were encouraged to put their names and addresses on the ballot papers. It was a secret ballot with no scrutineers. It was a secret ballot where ballot papers were immediately destroyed. It was a secret ballot where most of the residents challenged the shady result. In fact, in a similar vote held at Waitara there were more votes recorded than there were residents in the village, and that did not include eight residents who were absent at the time of voting.Residents at Lane Cove rightfully challenged the result on two grounds: firstly, the ballot was clearly rigged and the result was highly suspect; secondly, the ballot breached the deed of occupancy which most residents signed when they entered the village. In clause 7.3 of the deed I have, it is clear that the maintenance fees cannot be increased by more than 20 per cent of the half yearly increase in the age pension, which is around $8. Residents are also paying entrance fees of up to $50,000 and share in the care and maintenance of the property. So a 44 per cent hike in the half-yearly fees from around $950 to around $1,400 is a clear breach of agreement between Vasey and these pensioners.I do not know how much the directors of Vasey are earning, but I do know that hitting a war pensioner for an extra $840 a year is an unconscionable con job. What makes it worse is Vasey's sleazy attempt to cover up this nightmare. Vasey has used late night phone calls and visits to the homes of the more hesitant widows to try to intimidate them into signing new agreements that allow Vasey to increase fees at will. Some residents have signed up; others are defiant. However, Vasey is still sending notices to all residents demanding immediate payment at the new outrageous rates.Obviously these pensioners fear that they will lose their homes. Some have received frightening letters from the chairman of Vasey threatening to cut support services if the new fees are not paid. The Aged Care Rights Service, the Department of Fair Trading and the Legal Aid Commission are all involved. The Governor of New South Wales, who is the patron of Vasey, has given an unsatisfactory standard response. Meanwhile, Vasey is treating the dispute resolution process with contempt.Recently, management called in some residents to a disputes committee hearing. Management set the agenda, management set the charter and management nominated the representative residents. One of those nominated was an 83-year-old woman who was recently discharged from hospital after suffering a heart attack due to the stress of all these events.These women are scared, but they are also great survivors. Many have lived through the Depression and tough times. They are vulnerable pensioners who have made huge sacrifices for others. We cannot let Vasey management get away with this deceitful activity, and I join these wonderful women in their battle to save not only their home but also the dignity of the vision of Jessie Vasey. (Time expired)572622:47:005726O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Tonight I wish to raise the workplace situation of three workers in my electorate who are front-line victims of John Howard's regressive industrial relations system. These workers are three ordinary Geelong blokes who gained employment in a new high technology malting plant owned and operated by a firm called Doosan Malting. They are all highly skilled workers who welcomed the opportunity to work in a modern plant in their local community close to their families. As I speak in this parliament tonight, the three workers maintain a picket line outside Doosan Malting in defence of their jobs, their wages and their conditions of employment.All workers, in a couple of hours time, face John Howard's Workplace Relations Act, which seeks to strip them of their award conditions. It is timely to reflect on the situation of the Doosan workers and what is in store for others in the Geelong work force as the clock runs past midnight. For these workers, John Howard's promise that they would be no worse off and that their award conditions would be preserved has proved to be one big lie. Many workers are of the view that a promise made is one that ought to be kept, but as far as this Prime Minister and this government are concerned the workers of Australia know that they have been comprehensively betrayed.When these workers were employed, they went through an extensive interview process and medical tests. They received job offers from the company and they were told that their conditions of employment would be given to them later. On the first day of their employment, they were instructed to sign a trainee agreement with an out of town company called Goulburn Murray Group Training. Although employed as trainees, some workers undertook the supervision and training of casual employees hired at the malting plant while never receiving any of the normal training afforded other workers categorised as trainees and employed by local Geelong group trainers.Some seven months after being employed, and after numerous requests of management to reach agreement on their conditions of employment, they finally sighted an employment agreement prepared by Doosan. This offered a flat rate of $15 per hour, a seven-day roster and no overtime or leave loading. In addition, these trainee workers, who had received no training from Goulburn Murray Group Training, were being called on to do call-ins in the middle of the night, with no supervision, for two hours pay and no rest breaks at all. After attempting to negotiate for better conditions, the company offered the workers individual contracts. They offered them John Howard's workplace agreements. Some of the workers concerned called upon their union to be their bargaining unit in negotiations and have been sacked for their trouble.The simple facts of the matter are these: the workers concerned want no more than to work with dignity for a fair day's pay. They have been employed under questionable procedures and conditions and, where they have insisted on their legal right to bargain collectively and to be represented by their union, they have certainly paid a heavy price. This is the reality of John Howard's industrial relations promised land. The workers of Geelong have rallied to support them, and they have received strong guidance and support from their unions and the Geelong Trades Hall Council. My call tonight is to all workers in Geelong to support this picket. It is not a picket that has received great publicity in the national media, it is not a picket of the size of the MUA picket on the Melbourne waterfront, but it is a symbolic picket and one which represents much to Geelong workers.As the clock runs past midnight tonight, the Howard government wants to strip away the award conditions of many workers. I am indebted to the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) for listing some of those awards that are being stripped away: for example, the obligation to notify employees and consult on the introduction of technological or workplace change; the requirement for discussions to take place prior to redundancies; employees not to be given notice of termination while on authorised leave; the requirement to provide employees with a statement of employment on termination; provision that a termination of employment shall not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable; provision in relation to sexual or racial harassment; the requirement to provide a first aid kit—(Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Lilley, I would like to introduce two young ladies to the House, Ms Renee Conroy and Ms Belinda Brooks, who are students of high schools in the electorate of the honourable member for Lilley.572722:52:005727Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—I am pleased to have with me in Canberra this week two students from my electorate of Lilley in Brisbane, Renee Conroy from Aspley State High School and Belinda Brooks from Hendra Secondary College. Renee and Belinda were selected by their respective high schools for their interest and ability in government studies. I would also like to express my thanks to Ansett Australia for providing air tickets to the girls for their visit to Canberra.Whilst performing work experience in my office, the girls have had the opportunity to study at first-hand the workings of parliament. They have also written a combined speech on the problems of youth of today which I will now read to the House:The youth of today are facing many problems such as drugs, alcohol, unemployment, youth suicide and abuse. All of these problems can be helped if more information was made available to the youth of today. If the youth of today had a voice in government, a lot of problems could be heard and understood.There are a lot of pressures that are placed on youth today. One of the many pressures of being a youth is succeeding in the schooling life. Pressures such as passing subjects and receiving a good OP result are placed upon youths at a very young age. One major influence that affects the development of youths are peers and peer pressure. Peer pressure is probably the most damaging and destructive way for a youth to develop. Drugs, stealing, alcohol and many other issues are some times faced in a peer group. The youths in today's society are often subject to pressures of being popular and accepted by their peers. This is often done by the use of drugs and alcohol.Many young people are unaware of the dangers of consuming drugs and alcohol, and the result is sometimes harmful or even deadly to the teenager. What youth need is more education about the harmful effects of consuming drugs and alcohol. This could be done through schools. If there were frequent and continual education in every grade from year eight through to year twelve, then youth might be more responsible and learn to avoid drugs and alcohol. Counselling for teenagers should be considered within schools. This will enable teenagers to talk about alcohol and drug problems with a professional, who can help them overcome their addictions and deal with peer group pressures.In today's society, youth are expected to attend school. In the hope of getting a job, the youths need an educational background in any chosen field. In the future, youths will have to face unemployment, because there is going to be an advancement in technology and computers. This advancement will replace jobs. This unemployment level will bring about more underage drinking, stealing and the use of drugs. More pressures will be placed on youth to get jobs, which will be unobtainable because of the unemployment levels.Employment is a major concern for teenagers. Finding a part-time or full-time job while studying is difficult for today's youth. Teenagers have to overcome many problems in order to find jobs that suit them. Many teenagers who do not work or have only had a small amount of work experience often find it difficult to find a job after they leave school because of this lack of experience.This problem may be reduced if schools provide work experience for all students in a particular grade level, so that they can obtain skills that will make them employable after they leave school. Apprenticeships should also be more widely available to many teenagers.Youth suicide is not only a concern to the teenager who committed suicide but also the teenager's friends, family and the general public. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among Australians aged between fifteen and twenty-four. This is a major problem to society, and more should be done to help Australia's troubled youths. If there were more places for depressed or stressed youth to go to get help and talk about their problems, then maybe we could prevent some of them committing suicide. If there is more information about youth suicide provided to the public, then people may be able to detect early signs of suicidal behaviour. Also, counselling should be set up in schools so students can seek guidance and support. Having a youth voice in Parliament could overcome some of the up-coming problems that young people face. Having politicians listen to what youth go through and what pressures they might be under, may help the youth of today realise that people listen and that they can help.Renee's and Belinda's comments provide us with some very important thoughts to consider.572822:57:005728Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Tonight I want to take up a few points made by the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) last night about parliamentary debate. He said this in the adjournment debate: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.If you visit any workplace, any home, any gathering of ordinary Australians, any club or any sporting organisation in this country, you will find language which is direct, blunt and, if need be, punishing. This is a defining characteristic of the Australian ethos. The mateship ethos in this country has always led to direct talking, disagreement and, if need be, debate and votes and disputation. It is the Australian way of doing things. I do not think that in the current climate of the new type of politics we should be falling for the argument that this should be a chamber without debate. To listen to the member for Parramatta and his colleague the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson), it is almost as though they want to turn this into some type of cathedral where we all find some higher force that leads to us linking hands, chanting and singing and all walking around agreeing with each other. That is not a parliament. A parliament has debate, and debate is healthy for democracy. The good thing about the things that are fired in this chamber is that they are words—not bullets, not things that physically harm people, but words which are meant for the contest of ideas and persuasion in a parliamentary system.Let us not respond to some of the reaction we get from the media and perhaps some of the things that the Hansonites say by losing sight of the fact that this is a chamber made for debate and, if need be, disagreement. In the best of Australian traditions, let us make it direct and blunt and engage in Australian straight talking. It is not a cathedral. We will never find the higher force here. You might find it in other places but not right here, and not all us will share it even if you can find it in some other place.I think there are challenges for our parliamentary system, challenges we need to take seriously. We talk about the information revolution and we talk about a post-industrial society, but we run the parliament on horse and buggy principles. We run the parliament in a fashion that really has been overtaken by many forms of communication. I worry a great deal that the sovereignty and public attention of our democracy in many ways has moved to the airwaves, not so much parliamentary debate. If you asked the average Australian what they thought about the system of democracy, where they find their connection, they would say it is on talkback radio or TV. We need to adapt to that, but in the process of adaption we do not need to lose sight of the fundamentals of the parliamentary system which are about debate.Let us have a discussion about forms of direct democracy using new electronic superhighway technology. Let us have a talk about means by which we can better educate the public about our system of democracy, its responsibilities, its strengths and its flaws. Let us have a debate about accountability and participation in this chamber. But I am sick and tired of hearing people say that somehow we should be a chamber without debate. Let us never have that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.572923:00:005729Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—I should respond briefly to the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham). Yes, let us have real debate in this chamber; let us have real debate in this parliament. In fact, the member for Werriwa began a real debate inside the Labor Party when he raised the subject of a progressive expenditure tax, a kind of super GST. It is a real pity that this most interesting idea of the member for Werriwa has not been fully debated in this chamber and, indeed, inside the Labor Party, and it is a real pity that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and others on the frontbench of the Labor Party have not seen fit to pursue debate on this matter.I rise specifically to respond to the comments of the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton) and to refute the idea that this government has any sympathy for or any truck with any party appealing to racial prejudice or pandering to the fears, rather than the hopes, of the Australian people. I think it is important to pose the question: is the One Nation Party a genuine political party at all or is it just a get-rich-quick scheme for the benefit of the two Davids, Oldfield and Ettridge, who are now the part owners and major shareholders of One Nation Ltd?As far as can be worked out, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Ltd has just three directors and five shareholders. Much the same can be said for Pauline Hanson's One Nation Members Inc. which was formerly the Pauline Hanson Support Movement. The question is: where is the actual political party that has the 25,000 members which Messrs Oldfield and Ettridge constantly speak of, although I have to say informed insiders say that the real figure is closer to 4,500? What is this mysterious entity to which all these people supposedly belong?Yesterday, a resident of Manly knocked on the locked door of One Nation headquarters at Suite 2, Level 1, 15 The Corso, Manly. When the door was slightly opened, the caller said that she was interested in One Nation and she would like a membership form and a copy of the party's constitution. `No, we do not give those out,' boomed a male voice from the back of the office. A determined local member of parliament is not so easily put off, and I am pleased to say that I have finally tracked down a copy of the constitution of the party—not Pauline Hanson's One Nation Ltd, not Pauline Hanson One Nation Members Inc., but Pauline Hanson's One Nation as registered under the Queensland Electoral Act. I should point out that last week David Oldfield defended One Nation's corporate structure. He said:The Liberal Party in NSW, for example, is an unincorporated association of members. It has no protection for its members for its debts. Its members have joint and several liability for the Party's debt. That's how the Liberal Party's structured.Maybe their members should start asking about what they're doing running up bills because they're responsible for the money.That is what David Oldfield said last week. Yet when one gets a copy of the constitution of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, as registered in Queensland—surprise, surprise!—the actual party is guess what: an unincorporated association of members. In that respect it is exactly like other parties, but it is quite unlike other parties in that this party has two classes of members. It has management committee members, of whom there are just three, who totally run everything to do with the party, and there are affiliate members who, as far as I can work out, have absolutely no rights whatsoever.The member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) repeats over and over again, `We are all Australians and everyone has the same rights.' If that is what she really believes, why doesn't she practise what she preaches and allow equal rights inside One Nation? I should point out that the three people in charge as management committee members of Pauline Hanson's One Nation in Queensland have complete control over the $500,000 in taxpayers' money to which that party is entitled in the wake of the Queensland election and there is absolutely no democratic accountability whatsoever to stop those three blowing it all on a trip to Vanuatu. (Extension of time granted)There is absolutely nothing at all to stop those three people blowing it all on a trip to Vanuatu to view David Ettridge's tax haven. The member for Oxley has often attacked multinational companies for using overseas tax havens, in effect to force the battlers of Australia to pay more than their fair share of tax. As the Treasurer (Mr Costello) pointed out in question time today, the National Director of One Nation, David Ettridge, set up his own company in Vanuatu, one of the world's most notorious tax havens, to launder money received through his fundraising activities.This is bad enough, but he set that company up little more than a year after a bankruptcy order was made against him in the Federal Court in Sydney. Not only that but that order was secured by the Australian Taxation Office against David Ettridge on account of non-payment of $28,000 in taxes. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that bankrupts must wait three years before becoming company directors, and I ask the ASC to investigate whether this company was set up not only to avoid tax but also to evade Australian bankruptcy laws. I call upon the ASC to do this because it seems that One Nation's leaders are avoiding tax while One Nation's followers are paying it. What was David Ettridge's reaction when he was confronted with this? The Australia/Israel Review, which I commend for its pursuit of these matters, stated:Asked to comment on almost two years of litigation and adverse judgements to retrieve his unpaid taxes, Mr Ettridge initially told the Review that the Federal Court documents were forgeries and that he had never been declared a bankrupt.. . . . . . . . .When it was pointed out that the official documents were provided by the Federal Court, Mr Ettridge admitted that he had been declared bankrupt but had "then paid the amount owing and it was annulled. I was tardy in not dealing with the matter earlier. As far as I am concerned, it is as if it never happened".That is David Ettridge. We must really pose the question: are the senior people in One Nation Ltd simply chronic and habitual liars? They are very good at bandying around accusations of lying. David Oldfield was all over the airwaves today accusing different former members of One Nation of lying. Last week he accused me of lying over David Ettridge's 12.5 per cent commission on all One Nation donations. That was what he was saying last week, but what was David Oldfield saying in January? In January when David Oldfield was first confronted with reports of Mr Ettridge's commission deal— and I quote from the Advertiser of 9 January—he `confirmed Mr Ettridge received a commission of around 12.5 per cent'. Then he thought again, it seems, and said:"I don't think it's as high as 12.5 per cent, but it might be," he said. "It might be for the first million (of funds raised)."Was David Oldfield lying then? Was he just befuddled? Did he have an attack of the Max Willises? Or is he lying now? I think the Australian people should be the judge, but I think the conclusion they are rapidly coming to is that the One Nation Party is one gigantic con. I seek leave to table the following documents: One Nation's corporate structure, the constitution of Pauline Hanson's One Nation and documents relating to the bankruptcy of Mr David Ettridge.Leave granted.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned.23:10:005731House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.Miscellaneous57315731Mr Price asked Mr Speaker on 26 May 1998:Could you advise members of the guidelines regarding material that members can have printed and what specifically are not allowed to be printed as newsletters by the printing office.10000SPEAKERMr Speaker—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of the House Representatives Members' Handbook (1996 edition) contains the following guidelines on material that can be printed in newsletters by the printing service: Material is restricted to parliamentary and electorate business (material which is related to party political and electoral campaign matters will not be accepted); All material must bear the Member's name; and Reproduction of material such as cartoons, graphs, articles will only be approved if Members provide confirmation that they have received the permission of the author and appropriate attribution is included.Members are also entitled to have newsletters (as well as personalised letterhead stationery and other printed material as approved by the responsible Minister for distribution to constituents) printed under regulations made pursuant to the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990.Under guidelines used by the Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of the House of Representatives, Members accessing benefits under the regulations are required to certify, inter alia, that the expenditure is for parliamentary or electorate business (but not party business).Notices5731The following notices were given:Mr Laurie Ferguson to move:That this House notes:(1) the special relationship between Australia and Turkey which developed out of mutual respect engendered by the horrific experiences of the First World War;(2) that Turkey is a modern, secular state with which Australia should further enhance relations;(3) the importance of Turkey as a trade and investment partner in its own right and as a base for Australian trade efforts in the Middle East and Central Asia;(4) the significant contribution of Turkish migration to Australia's economic, social and cultural development; and(5) that Turkish speaking residents of Australia have contributed significantly to the Australian community by their approach to potentially divisive issues that could undermine harmony in our multicultural society.Mr Anderson to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Act 1993, and for related purposes.Mr Moore to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr Vaile to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1988, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Measurement Act 1960, and for related purposes.Dr Kemp to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to higher education, and for related purposes.Mr Fahey to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 , it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: New facilities for the National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Mr Fahey to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Act 1997, and for other purposes.Mr Williams to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for other purposes.Mr Williams to present a Bill for an Act to repeal redundant Acts, to make consequential amendments, and for related purposes.Mr Price to move:(1) That a Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing be appointed to inquire into:(a) proposals for the annual estimates and the additional estimates for the House of Representatives;(b) proposals to vary the staff structure of the House of Representatives, and staffing and recruitment policies; and(c) such other matters as are referred to it by the House;(2) That the committee shall:(a) in relation to estimates— (i) determine the amounts for inclusion in the parliamentary appropriation bills for the annual and the additional appropriations; and (ii) report to the House upon its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill; and(b) in relation to staffing— (i) make recommendations to the Speaker; and (ii) report to the House on any matter its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill;(3) That the committee consist of the Speaker and 11 other members, 6 members to be nominated by the Chief Government Whip or Whips and 5 members to be nominated by the Chief Opposition Whip or Whips or any independent Member;(4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair;(5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting;(6) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;(7) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;(8) That the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the members of that subcommittee;(9) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;(10) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records;(11) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place;(12) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House;(13) That the committee have leave to report from time to time; and(14) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.Mr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by amending standing order 94 to read as follows:Closure of Member94 A motion may be made that a Member who is speaking, except a Member giving a notice of motion or formally moving the terms of a motion allowed under the standing orders or speaking to a motion of dis sent (from any ruling of the Speaker under standing order 100), "be not further heard", and such question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.Mr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by inserting the following standing order after standing order 143:Questions to committee chairs143A Questions may be put to a Member in his or her capacity as Chair of a committee of the House, or of a joint committee, in connection with the work or duties of the committee in question.Mr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by inserting the following standing order after standing order 145:Questions without notice—Time limits145A During question time:(a ) the asking of each question may not exceed 1 minute and the answering of each question may not exceed 4 minutes;(b ) the asking of each supplementary question may not exceed 1 minute and the answering of each supplementary question may not exceed 1 minute; and(c ) the time taken to make and determine points of order is not to be regarded as part of the time for questions and answers.Mr Price to move:That the standing orders be amended by:(1) adding at the end of standing order 270:"The Main Committee shall meet every sitting Monday and Tuesday between 1 p.m and 2 p.m. for the purpose of Members' constituency statements."; and(2) inserting the following standing order:Members' constituency statements106B A Member, other than a Minister, may be called by the Deputy Speaker in the Main Committee to make a constituency statement, as provided for in standing order 270, for a period not exceeding 3 minutes.Mr Reith to move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 28, private Members' business, for the second reading of the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998, being called on forthwith and the bill proceeding through all stages without delay.Documents5733The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 30 June 1998:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Proposals 1998 Nos. 13, 14.Migration Act—General direction 1998 No. 7.National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act—Kakadu National Park—Comments on the representations on the fourth plan of management in respect of the Park.Plan of management.Representations on the fourth plan of management in respect of the Park.Radiocommunications Act—Instruments of variation 1998—VHF High Band Frequency Band Plan (148 to 174 MHz).VHF Mid Band Frequency Band Plan (70 to 87.5 MHz).Social Security Act—Instrument 1998 Social Security Student Financial Supplement Scheme.Rules 1998 Social Security (Fares Allowance).Answers to Questions in Writing5734The following answers to questions were circulated:5734(Question No. 2826)28265734Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:What items of indigenous cultural property have been repatriated to Australia since 1988 and (a) when, (b) whence and (c) in what circumstances was each repatriated.5734Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Since 1988 the Commonwealth has been involved in a number of returns of Aboriginal human remains from overseas collecting institutions. These include:Yagan: The skull of Yagan was returned to Australia on 2 Sep 1997 following its exhumation from the Everton Cemetery in Liverpool in the UK. It was reclaimed by a delegation of Nyoongar community representatives following a campaign lasting many years. The return was funded jointly by the Western Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.Recent returns by representatives of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC). The TAC has been active for many years in seeking the return to Australia of both Tasmanian human remains and artefacts held in overseas collections. The TAC claims a unique authority to represent Tasmanian Aboriginal people's interests in relation to cultural property, and has pursued its program often independently of ATSIC involvement or assistance.Because it has avoided relying on ATSIC resources the TAC does not report to the Commonwealth on the outcomes of its endeavors, and ATSIC is unable therefore to provide details on the material it has repatriated independently.The remains of Tambo: Tambo was taken as a circus attraction to the United States, where he died last century. His embalmed remains were discovered in the premises of a funeral director in the United States and offered up for repatriation in 1993. The remains were collected by Palm Island community representatives funded and assisted by the ATSIC State Office in Brisbane.Edinburgh University: There were two releases of remains from Edinburgh University in 1991. The first consisted of eleven Tasmanian crania which, although initially offered up to the Commonwealth were accepted by a TAC delegation and returned in July 1991. The TAC delegation was partially funded by ATSIC.In October 1991 a delegation approved by the ATSIC Board of Commissioners, and funded by ATSIC, collected 299 mainland remains, mostly crania. The collection was transferred to the custody of the National Museum of Australia (NMA), and some remains have been collected by Aboriginal community representatives. Because of poor provenancing, and a failure by the States to assist communities within their jurisdictions, a large part of the collection remains in the custody of the NMA.ATSIC has funded research projects to further provenence the collection. We have been informed that the University of Edinburgh wishes to make a further release of post-cranial remains.Kelvingrove Museum, Glasgow: October 1990, 3 human remains from Mt Morgan in Queensland were accompanied back to Australia by an officer of the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA), and a traditional owner for the area, William Toby. The return was funded by ATSIC and the remains were dealt with by the Aboriginal community.Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford: Representatives of the TAC and FAIRA retrieved the crania of 5 individuals, and a preserved sub-incised penis, from the Pitt Rivers Museum in June 1990. The visit was funded by ATSIC. This return was simultaneous with a return of material from Bradford and Peterborough museums.Bradford and Peterborough: In June 1990 2 crania from the Bradford and Peterborough museums were accepted by an Aboriginal officer of the Australian Public Service to be couriered to Australia. The officer was met by representatives of the TAC and FAIRA who assumed responsibility for distributing the remains upon returning to Australia.Dublin, Royal College of Surgeons: In 1990 the preserved head of a Tasmanian man was collected from Dublin by the TAC.5735(Question No. 2939)29395735Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Veterans' 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.5735Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The following grants have been made to organisations in the electoral division of Oxley:(a) 1996-97ProgramOrganisationPurposeAmountLocal Commemorative Activities Fund*Former members of the 111 and 110 Light Anti Aircraft Battery based in Malaysia from 1964 to 1969Commemorative Program in Malaysia—wreathes, plaque, banner, photography.$500* The Local Commemorative Activities Fund is a component of the Their Service—Our Heritage Commemorative program, under which ex-service organisations, councils and other community groups can receive funding assistance for projects which commemorate the services that Australian veterans have made in the defence of Australia's freedom.(b) 1997-98ProgramOrganisationPurposeAmountJoint Venture Scheme*Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association, Ipswich and District BranchTo purchase equipment for lawn mowing service$3,497Community Care Seeding Grants Program**Blue Nursing ServiceTo purchase equipment for day respite centre $8,460* The Joint Venture Scheme maintains and improves the independence and quality of life of the veteran community by assisting ex-service organisations to provide social and personal support services, in particular to those organisations which do not have the capacity to fund projects themselves.** The Community Care Seeding Grants Program maintains and improves the independence and quality of life of veterans and their widow(er)s living in the community by increasing access to community care services and residential and community-based respite care. The Program was introduced in 1995-96.(c) 1998-99 Nil.5736(Question No. 2942)29425736McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Has he considered the National Health and Medical Research Council's report on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; if so, what is the Government's response to the report.5736Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The National Health and Medical Research Council's report on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was released in December 1997. The report covers the assessment, diagnosis and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.This report advises professionals, parents and consumers on the assessment, diagnosis and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder based on available evidence; in addition to identifying questions for researchers. The Report does not require specific action by this Government.5736(Question No. 3028)30285736Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 June 1998:(1) Which international maritime conventions have been ratified by Australia and on what dates.(2) Which of the conventions referred to in part (1) are (a) in force and what dates did each come into force and (b) not in force.(3) Which conventions (a) in force and (b) not operative have yet to be ratified by Australia.5736Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1), (2) and (3) Details are provided in the following Tables.Table 1International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions(2) (a) & (b) Date of Entry into Force(1) Date of Ratification by Australia1(3) (a) & (b) Date of Entry into Force in AustraliaInternational Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law respecting: (1) Collisions between Vessels; and (2) Assistance of Salvage at Sea01.03.1309.09.30 Accession24.10.30Declaration recognising the Right to a Flag of States having no Sea Coast20.04.2131.10.22 Accession31.10.22Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports, and Protocol of Signature (under the auspices of the League of Nations)26.07.2629.06.2526.07.26International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of law relating to Bills of Lading (Hague Rules), and the Protocol of Signature02.06.3104.07.55 Accession04.01.56Protocol (SDR Protocol) amending the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of law relating to Bills of Lading of August 1924 (Hague Rules)14.02.8416.07.93 Accession16.10.93Convention on the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) 194817.03.5813.02.52 Accepted17.03.58European Convention on Customs Treatment of Pallets used in International Transport12.06.6201.10.69 Accession31.12.69 Convention on the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO)22.09.7003.03.67 Signed 25.11.68 Ratified22.09.70Customs Convention on Containers, and Protocol of Signature (under the auspices of the UN)06.12.7510.11.75 Accession10.05.76International Convention into the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, (SOLAS 1974)25.05.8017.08.83 Accession17.11.83UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC)16.11.9410.12.82 Signed 05.10.94 Ratified16.11.94Amendment to Part XI of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea16.11.9429.07.94 Signed 05.10.94 Ratified16.11.94Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS PROT 1978)01.05.8117.08.83 Accession17.11.83Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS PROT (HSSC) 1988)NYIF*07.02.97 AccessionNYIF*Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREG 1972)15.07.7729.02.80 Accession29.02.80Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL PROT 1978)02.10.8330.05.79 Signed 14.10.87 Ratified14.01.88- Annex I (Oil)02.10.8314.10.87 Ratified14.01.88- Annex II (Noxious liquid substances)06.04.8714.10.87 Ratified14.01.88- Annex III (Harmful substances in packaged forms)01.07.9210.10.94 Accession10.01.95- Annex IV (Sewage)NYIF*NYR#NYR#- Annex V (Garbage)31.12.8814.08.90 Accession14.11.90Convention on facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, 1965 (FAL 1965)05.03.6728.04.86 Accession27.06.86International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (LL 1966)21.07.6804.07.66 Signed 29.07.68 Accepted29.10.68Protocol of 1988 relating to the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966 (LL PROT (HSSC) 1988)NYIF*07.02.97 AccessionNYIF* International Convention on Tonnage measurement of Ships, 1969 (TONNAGE 1969)18.07.8221.05.82 Accession22.08.82International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 (INTERVENTION 1969)06.05.7517.12.70 Signed 07.11.83 Ratified05.02.84Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973 (INTERVENTION PROT 1973)30.03.8307.11.83 Accession05.02.84International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (CLC 1992)30.05.9617.12.70 Signed 07.11.83 Ratified09.10.96Protocol to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 29 November 19698.05.8107.11.83 Accession5.02.84Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (PAL PROT 1976)28.04.87NYR#NYR#Protocol to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (PAL PROT 1976)30.04.89NYR#NYR#Protocol of 1990 to amend the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974 (PAL PROT 1990)NYIF*NYR#NYR#Convention on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT), 1976 (INMARSAT C)16.07.7916.02.77 Signed 16.03.79 Ratified16.07.79Operating Agreement on the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT), 1976 (INMARSAT OA)16.07.7916.03.7916.07.79International Agreement on the Use of INMARSAT Ship Earth Stations with the Territorial Sea and Ports12.09.9302.04.87 Signed12.09.93Special Trade Passenger Ships Agreement, 1971 (STP 1971)02.01.74NYR#NYR#Protocol on Space Requirements for Special Trade Passenger Ships, 1973 (SPACE STP 1973)02.06.77NYR#NYR#Convention relating to Civil Liability in the Field of Maritime Carriage of Nuclear materials, 1971 (NUCLEAR 1971)15.07.75NYR#NYR#Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (SPREP)22.08.9024.11.87 Signed 19.07.89 Ratified22.08.90Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the South Pacific region by Dumping22.08.9024.11.87 Signed22.08.90 Protocol concerning Cooperation in Combating Pollution Emergencies in the South Pacific Region22.08.9024.11.87 Signed 19.07.89 Ratified22.08.90Agreement establishing the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP)31.08.9521.09.93 Signed 18.10.94 Ratified22.08.90International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (FUND 1992)30.05.9610.10.94 Accession09.10.96Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage of 18 December 197122.11.9410.10.94 Accession08.01.95Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 29 November 196930.05.9609.10.95 Accession09.10.96Protocol of 1992 to amend the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage of 18 December 197130.05.9609.10.95 Accession09.10.96International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972 (CSC 1972)06.09.7722.02.80 Accession23.02.81Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 197601.12.8620.02.91 Accession01.06.91Protocol of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 (LLMC PROT 1996)NYIF*NYR#NYR#Torremolinos Protocol of 1993 relating to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels, 1977 (SFV PROT 1993)NYIF*NYR#NYR#International Convention on Standards of training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW(amended)1978)28.04.8410.10.73 Signed 07.11.83 Ratified28.04.84International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessel personnel, 1995 (STCW-F)NYIF*NYR#NYR#International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979 (SAR 1979)22.06.8507.11.83 Accession22.06.85Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, as amended (LC 1972)30.08.7521.08.85 Ratified20.09.851996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (LC PROT 1996)NYIF*NYR#NYR# Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 (SUA 1988)01.03.9219.02.93 Accession20.05.93Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, 1988 (SUA PROT 1988)01.03.9219.02.93 Accession20.05.93International Convention on Salvage, 1989 (SALVAGE 1989)14.07.9608.01.97 Accession08.01.98International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 (OPRC 1990)13.05.9506.07.92 Accession13.05.95International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996 (HNS 1996)NYIF*NYR#NYR#1 Signature is the act whereby a State expresses its consent to the text of a treaty but not necessarily its consent to be bound by its provisions. Once a State has signed a treaty it is not obliged to ratify it. However, the Australian government's policy is not to sign a treaty without the intention to ratify it at a later date. Ratification is confirmation of signature and signifies the intention to be bound by the provisions of a treaty. Accession is a single act whereby a State expresses its consent to be bound, instead of signature followed by ratification. Accession is only used in the case of multilateral agreements, usually when the agreement has been previously signed by other States. Acceptance of a convention once it has been signed has the same effect at ratification.* NYIF Not yet in force# NYR Not yet ratifiedTable 2International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions and Protocol Dealing with Maritime Matters(2) (a) & (b) Date of Entry into Force(1) Date of Ratification by Australia(3) (a) & (b) Date of Entry into Force in Australia7, Minimum Age (Sea), 192027.09.2128.06.3528.06.358, Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck), 192016.03.2328.06.3528.06.359, Placing of Seamen, 192023.11.2103.08.2503.08.2515, Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers), 192120.11.2228.06.3528.06.3516, Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea), 192120.11.2228.06.3528.06.3521, Inspection of Emigrants, 192629.12.2718.04.3118.04.3122, Seamen's Articles of Agreement, 192604.04.2801.04.3501.04.3523, Repatriation of Seamen, 192616.04.28not ratified-27, Marking of Weight (Packages Transported By Vessels), 192909.03.3209.03.3109.03.3228, Protection Against Accidents (Dockers), 192901.04.32not ratified- 32, Protection Against Accidents (Dockers) (Revised), 193230.10.34not ratified-53, Officers' Competency Certificates, 193629.03.39not ratified-54, Holidays with Pay (Sea), 1936NIF*not ratified-55, Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen), 193629.10.39not ratified-56, Sickness Insurance (Sea), 193609.12.49not ratified-57, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1936NIF*24.09.38-58, Minimum Age (Sea)(Revised), 193611.04.3911.06.9211.06.9368, Food and Catering (Ships' Crews), 194624.03.57not ratified-69, Certification of Ships' Cooks, 194622.04.5329.08.9529.02.9670, Social Security (Seafarers), 1946NIF*not ratified-71, Seafarers' Pensions, 194610.10.62not ratified-72, Paid Vacations (Seafarers), 1946NIF*not ratified-73, Medical Examination (Seafarers), 194617.08.5529.08.9529.02.9674, Certification of Able Seamen, 194614.07.51not ratified-75, Accommodation of Crews, 1946NIF*not ratified-76, Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1946NIF*25.01.49-91, Paid Vacations (Seafarers)(Revised), 194914.09.67not ratified-92, Accommodation of Crews (Revised), 194929.01.5311.06.9211.12.9293, Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) (Revised), 1949NIF*03.03.54-108, Seafarers' Identity Documents, 195819.02.61not ratified-109, Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea)(Revised), 1958NIF*15.06.72-112, Minimum Age (Fishermen), 195907.11.6115.06.7115.06.72113, Medical Examination (Fishermen), 195907.11.61not ratified-114, Fishermen's Articles of Agreement, 195907.11.61not ratified-125, Fishermen's Competency Certificates, 196615.07.69not ratified-126, Accommodation of Crews (Fishermen), 196606.11.68not ratified-133, Accommodation of Crews (Supplementary Provisions), 197027.08.9111.06.9211.12.92134, Prevention of Accidents (Seafarers), 197017.02.73not ratified-137, Dock Work, 197324.07.7525.06.7425.06.75145, Continuity of Employment (Seafarers), 197603.05.79not ratified-146, Seafarers' Annual Leave with Pay, 197613.06.79not ratified-147, Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards), 197628.11.81not ratified-152, Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work), 197905.12.81not ratified-163, Seafarers' Welfare, 198703.10.90not ratified-164, Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers), 198711.01.91not ratified-165, Social Security (Seafarers)(Revised), 198702.07.92not ratified-166, Repatriation of Seafarers (Revised), 198703.07.9129.08.9529.08.96178, Labour Inspection (Seafarers), 1996NIF*not ratified-179, Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers, 1996NIF*not ratified- 180, Seafarers' Hours of Work and the Manning of Ships, 1996NIF*not ratified-* NIF Not in force, because the minimum number of ratifications has not been achieved.