1998-07-023817REPS587301998-07-02Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills5873r5825873Bill presented by Mr Truss, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.587309:31:005873Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The proposed amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 will, if enacted, provide five years protection for undisclosed test and/or other data submitted to the National Registration Authority for agricultural and veterinary chemicals for the evaluation of a new active constituent for an agricultural or veterinary chemical product. Such data will not be available for reference by a commercial competitor—for example, a generic product manufacturer—without the agreement of the originator of the data.In the vast majority of cases the five-year data protection period will lapse before the expiry of the patent term, thereby having no effect on the marketing of generic products. It will, however, remove any doubt about whether Australia is fulfilling its obligations under article 39(3) of the World Trade Organisation Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.The government announced on 11 December 1996 that it interpreted article 39(3) of TRIPs as requiring Australia to provide protection from unfair commercial use for undisclosed test and/or other data submitted in an application for approval in respect of a new active constituent, that is, a new chemical entity.This bill also repeals the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act 1978. The repeal will cease the current equalisation of export returns for dried vine fruits from 1 January 1999. As equalisation currently occurs over the course of a season, with returns calculated at the last export of fruit from that season, the repeal allows for the continued operation of equalisation for the previous 1998 season.The dried vine fruits industry is the only commodity which continues to operate an equalisation scheme. The industry now contends that, in the prevailing market circumstances, equalisation arrangements are inappropriate and mask market signals and inhibit industry and marketing innovation. The industry peak body, the Australian Dried Fruits Association, has requested the termination of the scheme.The bill amends the Export Control Act 1982 to ensure that Australia's export control legislation provides appropriate coverage for contemporary administrative arrangements. Under current export inspection arrangements there is a strong move for exporters to assume more responsibility for the quality of their product under quality systems approved and supervised by AQIS.The amendments to the Export Control Act 1982 in this bill seek to facilitate this move by allowing for the appropriate coverage of these systems in delegated legislation and by strengthening the enforcement powers in the act in line with Commonwealth law administration policy.The purpose of the amendment to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 is to clarify some aspects of the act which have previously been confusing and to enable consistent application of the act across areas which have previously been left open.The amendment is sought by the government as a result of inconsistencies being found by officers working with the act. As a result of the amendment, AQIS anticipates a more effective and efficient service to industry as it clarifies areas of the act that have previously been in doubt.The specific issues which will be addressed by these amendments are as follows. The compensation amendment will allow importers to claim recompense from the government for food which, as a result of the inspection, has been rendered unfit for the purpose for which it was imported. This will mean that where, as a result of sampling, the food cannot be sold on the market or has been damaged significantly, the owner of the goods can claim compensation for the value lost.The offence amendment will cover a procedural loophole in the legislation. At this time a penalty exists for dealing with a food before a food control certificate is issued and a penalty exists for dealing with a food contrary to a direction under the act after the inspection advice is issued. However, the time between the issue of a food control certificate and the issue of the inspection advice is not covered by the act. This amendment will cover that loophole.The amendment addresses the position of food imported as trade samples. Often small quantities of food are brought into Australia to evaluate their market potential. The samples are not, however, released onto the domestic market. The samples generally exceed the volume and weight prescribed in subsection 7(2) of the act as food imported for private consumption.It is considered appropriate for the secretary of the department to have the power to permit the importation without inspection of trade samples with a weight/volume limitation of 20 kilograms/20 litres, except in the case of concentrated liquids and moisture reduced foods where 2 kilograms/2 litres should apply, and spices for which the limit should be 1 kilogram, as in regulation 4 of the Imported Foods Control Regulations.Although it may be argued that provision could be made for trade samples in section 7 in the same manner as provision is made for food imported for private consumption, AQIS would prefer the introduction of a system involving specific approval of particular samples for importation without inspection to ensure strict control is maintained.The amendment relating to publishing of information ensures that section 35 specifically permits the publication of information relating to food which has been released and is subsequently reported, after sampling and analysis, as failing food. Further specific permission is provided in this amendment to specifically permit the secretary to publish importer and brand name information in relation to failing food.Minor amendments are also necessary to provide for a specific power for the secretary to approve an overseas food processing operation for the purpose of part 2 of the act, even though this power is already implicit, and to amend a drafting error in section 42 which currently gives an incorrect paragraph number.All food imported into Australia must firstly comply with the requirements of the Quarantine Act 1908 before being inspected against the requirements of the Imported Food Control Act 1992. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to the Imported Food Control Act 1992 will have no effect on Australia's quarantine standardsThe purpose of the proposed amendment to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 is to make naming of new varieties easier. Currently, an anomalous restriction exists which precludes any duplication of plant variety names, regardless of whether varieties are protected or currently in commerce. The need not to repeat a name makes the checking of proposed names to ensure novelty an unnecessarily laborious process for both the applicant and the PBR office.Therefore, it is proposed to allow limited duplication of variety names, provided varieties with the same name are from an entirely different plant class and are unlikely to be confused in the marketplace. For example, the same name could be accepted for a variety of turnip as well as for a variety of tulip. Duplication of names in closely related cereal crops such as wheat, barley and oats would not be accepted as it would be likely to cause confusion in the normal course of commerce.A list of plant classes maintained by the PBR office will be accessible to prospective PBR applicants free of charge. The proposed amendment is in conformity with the international standards on the matter and will promote the use of a single name for each vari ety, regardless of the country in which it is marketed.I commend the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills5875r5725875Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.587509:41:005875Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill represents the first instalment of legislative amendments proposed by the government implementing the Tough on Drugs strategy, an initiative announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on 2 November 1997.Everyone knows about the menace of illicit drugs and the damage that they do to society, especially to young people. The government is determined to do everything it can to reduce the damage and the Prime Minister's personal leadership in announcing the Tough on Drugs strategy is a very clear demonstration of that commitment.The government's strategy is threefold. Firstly, it aims to reduce demand for illicit drugs by educating people, particularly young people, about the dangers of drug use. Secondly, it aims to reduce the harm being done to drug users, for example, through education about the risks of HIV/AIDS among injecting users. Thirdly, it aims to reduce the supply of illicit drugs by stopping them from coming into the country in the first place. Each of these parts of the strategy received a significant boost in funding in the Prime Minister's initial announcement of 2 November 1997 and were emphasised in his second instalment announced on 16 March this year.As well as making sure that our law enforcement agencies have the people and the tools that they need to combat this menace, we also need to make sure that they are equipped with adequate and appropriate legal powers. That is what this bill is about.The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 with the objective of providing Customs officers with more effective powers in relation to the detection of illicit drugs at the border. The bill also amends the Customs Administration Act 1985 in relation to the use made of information obtained or held by the Australian Customs Service. A brief outline of the proposals included in the bill follows.Currently, passengers and crew who arrive in Australia on a ship or a plane are required to report to Customs. In respect of such people, Customs has powers to ask questions, search bags and, subject to establishing a reasonable cause, conduct searches of people.But there is a gap in these powers. Customs does not currently have these powers in relation to a large number of people who have access to ships and planes that have arrived in Australia and which potentially may have illicit drugs on board. This group of people includes people such as maintenance crews, caterers, cleaners and, particularly in relation to ships, visitors. This gap is a weakness which has been exploited as a means of importing illicit drugs into Australia. The proposed amendments seek to provide Customs officers with a power to examine the bags or other containers in the possession of such persons to ensure illicit drugs are not being landed by them.Similarly, Customs officers do not currently have any power to frisk search such persons. This inability to frisk search, where the Customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is carrying prohibited goods on his or her body, provides a significant opportunity for such persons to walk illicit drugs off a ship or aircraft. The amendments propose to provide Customs officers with the power to undertake a frisk search of a person in such circumstances.It is proposed that these powers will also apply in circumstances where Customs officers are involved in the boarding and searching of a ship or aircraft, whether it is berthed or parked at a wharf or airport respectively, or whether a vessel is boarded at sea by Customs officers on an Australian Customs vessel.In summary, the powers proposed are not new ones. As I have explained, Customs already has these powers in respect of arriving passengers. The proposal is simply to extend the powers to other people in a Customs place who have unrestricted access to planes and ships for quite legitimate purposes. The proposed frisk search powers will provide the same safeguards and rights to individuals as currently apply to passengers, thereby ensuring that the dignity of a person being frisk searched is maintained.In relation to Customs officers on board Australian Customs vessels, there has for some time been a concern within the Australian Customs Service about the safety and welfare of Customs officers operating at sea in an isolated environment. Customs officers are not armed. They should be able to feel safe and without the fear of any threat when administering the Customs Act and protecting our borders. This is particularly the case in relation to Customs officers operating at sea when boarding a ship. Unlike the controlled environment at an airport, Customs officers do not necessarily know in advance the circumstances they will confront on boarding. For this reason a special frisk search power is being sought in these circumstances. When an officer suspects that he or she is in danger of being injured by a person on the ship, the officer will be able to frisk search the suspect person without consent and take possession, if necessary with reasonable force, of any implement such as knives, guns or other implements which could harm the officers.The bill also proposes to give Customs officers the power to copy a document in circumstances where a Customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the document contains information in relation to the importation of illicit drugs. Such information will be invaluable in the detection of significant drug importations. In addition, the bill proposes a number of amendments which will assist in the detection of drugs by generally making Customs controls more effective at the border. These may be summarised as follows: A Customs officer currently has the power to require a vehicle to stop in a Customs place for the purpose of checking goods leaving Customs control. There is no deterrent if the driver of the vehicle fails to stop. It is proposed to make it an offence in cases where the vehicle fails to stop.Currently the Customs Act makes it an offence for craft or goods coming from a place outside Australia to go directly to a sea installation without Customs permission. A similar offence exists in relation to a craft or goods leaving a sea installation directly for a place outside Australia. It is proposed to extend the application of this provision to resources installations. The potential for sea installations to be used to breach border controls is equally relevant in relation to resources installations.It is an offence under the Customs Act for an Australian based craft to transfer goods at sea to a craft on an international voyage. It is proposed to also make it an offence for the craft on the international voyage to be involved in such a transfer of goods.A Customs officer currently has the power to board and search a foreign flagged ship in the Australian territorial sea. As a consequence of Australia becoming a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is proposed to extend these powers to the contiguous zone in cases where the Customs officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship has been, is or is to be involved in the commission of an offence against the Customs Act. It is also proposed to extend the area in which the general powers to board and search ships may be exercised to include the sea to the landward side of the base line to the coastline of Australia as well as the territorial sea.Amendments are also proposed to the Customs Administration Act 1985. These amendments will modernise the official secrecy and disclosure provisions and will recognise the necessity of arrangements for intelligence sharing in acting against illicit drug smuggling and trafficking as well as in relation to other unlawful activity. Such arrangements also assist efficient operational and regulatory activity by Customs and other bodies. Special safeguards are also included to ensure the appropriate protection of personal information.The bill also includes a proposal related to the control of weapons in accordance with the government's gun control policy. The objective of this proposal is that a person on a craft on an international voyage visiting Australia—for example, a yacht—is to be subject to the same gun controls as if such a person arrived in Australia as a passenger similar to all Australians.To this end it is proposed that such a person be required to keep such weapons in secure storage on board their craft for the duration of their stay in Australia. If they are unable to provide secure storage on their craft for the storage of the weapon, the Customs officer is to have the power to take the weapon into custody for the duration of the person's stay in Australia. The weapon will be returned to the person upon departure from Australia.The proposals I have outlined will be of valuable assistance to the Australian Customs Service in controlling movements of people, craft and goods across the Australian border and, in particular, will enhance the ability of the Australian Customs Service to detect importations of illicit drugs into Australia. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Bills5877r5785877Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.587709:51:005877Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Life Insurance (Conduct and Disclosure) Bill 1998 is being introduced today to give effect to a range of measures announced by the government in October 1996 to strengthen consumer protection in the life insurance industry.The measures will complement existing prudential requirements under the Life Insurance Act 1995, and thereby bring to fruition a process of reforms intended to achieve a modern, flexible and strong regulatory regime for life insurance.The key policy objectives of the Life Insurance (Conduct and Disclosure) Bill 1998 are to strengthen consumer protection in the life insurance industry; enhance the accountability of life companies and life brokers in respect of product distribution; and improve consistency in the regulatory treatment of life insurance advisers and securities dealers and their representatives.The bill will promote consumer protection and regulatory neutrality by introducing provisions comparable to the Corporations Law in relation to product disclosure, financial advice recommendations and prohibitions on misleading and deceptive conduct.Accountability will be promoted by requiring life companies to establish an internal compliance committee to monitor compliance with the consumer protection regime, enabling the Life Insurance Code of Practice to be given statutory backing and introducing a balanced range of civil penalties and criminal sanctions.The Life Insurance (Conduct and Disclosure) Bill 1998 will be administered by the government's new market integrity and consumer protection regulator for the financial system, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This legislation will play an important role in strengthening consumer protection in the life insurance sector in the lead-up to choice of superannuation fund for new employees from 1 July 1999.Introduction of the Life Insurance (Conduct and Disclosure) Bill 1998 will not hinder progress toward a single licensing regime for financial advisers foreshadowed under the government's corporate law economic reform program (CLERP). The measures in the bill are broadly consistent with CLERP proposals. However, there may be some adjustment to the life insurance regime contemplated in this bill when CLERP reforms are eventually introduced.In conclusion, the reforms set out in the Life Insurance (Conduct and Disclosure) Bill 1998 will raise industry standards of service and advice, and thereby give consumers greater confidence when considering life insurance products as protection against adversity and investment for the future. The consumer protection reforms will also meet community expectations for a more open and consumer-oriented industry.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Committees5878587858785878Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 19th report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being circulated to members in the chamber.Report—by leave—adopted.5878587809:55:005878Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the following reports, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee: the Fifteenth Report incorporating a dissenting report relating to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, treaties tabled on 1 April 1998 and treaties tabled on 12 May 1998; and the Sixteenth Report: The OECD convention on combating bribery and draft implementing legislation .Ordered that the reports be printed.OJ4Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOR—by leave—As I have indicated, these are the 15th and 16th reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, in progress since August 1996. I wanted to make the point that this has been a very heavy workload over 20 months or so. It has involved the consideration of about 120 trea ties, protocols and conventions. I want to pay tribute to my committee colleagues on both sides of this place and in the other place, in particular my deputy chair, the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland), without whose assistance a lot of the work would not have been done. I also want to thank a very highly professional secretariat for the great work that they have done under some fairly strong pressure at times.I will not make too many comments on report No. 16 on the convention on combating bribery; I will leave that to my colleagues. However, I did want to make the point that this is a first in that it is the first time a minister of the present government has appeared before the committee. I thank the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone, for doing that. It is also a first in that it is the first time we have had draft legislation that has been provided with a treaty. Again, we thank her for that. I will leave it to my colleagues to expand on some of the issues. We have recommended the ratification of this convention but, nevertheless, we have made some useful recommendations in terms of amendments to and the handling of that convention.I wanted to make some comments on the Fifteenth Report, which covers a potpourri of treaties, conventions and protocols. It makes some recommendations, including an important one on intercountry adoption. There was some debate in this place earlier this week on that and I hope that our recommendations on this will make the facilitation of that convention a little easier. We commend our recommendations to the government. There is also one in there on ILO Convention No. 9 in relation to seafarers, on which we have, for only the second in the committee, divided on party lines. I leave it to the honourable member for Barton to make a few points on that in due course.In relation to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, we have recommended ratification. But we have also said we would hope that, once this government ratifies, we would put some pressure on the United States to move similarly. There is another one in there on investment protection and protection with Pakistan—a bilateral. This is only the second time that we have recommended against ratification at this time, although it is slightly different to the one with Kazakhstan that we recommended against in that we have said that, once the government has normalised its relations with Pakistan, the thing should proceed. Until such time as that happens, we feel it is inappropriate.There are a number of other—about half a dozen—multilateral and bilateral conventions involved in the report as well. Mention is also made in the report—although we have not completed our work—of the Quebec treaty on antipersonnel landmines. We are very happy for the government to agree with the sentiment espoused in that report as, indeed, all thinking Australians and everybody around the world should be in relation to that international tragedy—the tragedy of antipersonnel landmines and their proliferation around the globe. We would like to meet a little more on this with the non-government organisations before we finalise our report.There are also some comments in the report about a mutual recognition agreement with the OECD. Whilst the agreement was signed by ministers with Sir Leon Brittan when he was here in Canberra last week, we feel that we need to do a little more work in relation to that. The agreement has implications for the multilateral agreement on investment and we are not prepared at this stage to give an open-ended recommendation for ratification, simply because we do not have enough information. There is also the fifth protocol to the general agreement on trade and services. Again that is linked in with the multilateral agreement on investment, and we would like to have a look at that a little more closely.Reports on a number of other treaties were tabled on 30 June. In particular, I highlight at this point in time an extension of the agreement in relation to Pine Gap. That obviously will need sensitive treatment. It is the committee's intention, with the approval of the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan), to visit Pine Gap before we make recommendations to the parliament.Finally, I want to take the opportunity to highlight, as a result of this being our 16th report in 20 months, the workload of the committee. But, besides that, I want to emphasise to the House and, indeed, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), were she here—CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—She's not here again.OJ4Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOR—She is not here again. I want to make the point that she and others of her ilk have made the very parochial, very populist comment from time to time that we proceed to make these things as a nation without due consideration. That is a load of rubbish. The honourable member for Oxley—I agree with the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and others in this regard—is being choreographed by a lot of people with other agendas. Also, I think that she has a number of svengalis in her immediate vicinity. As I have pointed out to the member for Oxley before in this place, she needs to look over her shoulder at those who are choreographing what she is all about. She has shown in the last 48 hours that she does not have a great knowledge of a lot of these issues. She may get away with this populism in the short term, but I am sure all of us—on both sides of this House, in the other place and, indeed, right around the country—will eventually come to the realisation that, whilst what she says sounds like it makes good sense in the short term, a lot of what she says has no substance. I think she will be caught out because of her lack of substance.10:04:005879Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—by leave—I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery and Corruption, Report No. 16. Corruption is one of the greatest challenges facing the contemporary world. It covers a range of activities, including extortion, nepotism, cronyism, bribery and money laundering. It can take both active and passive forms and can cause destabilisation in countries by undermining confidence in institutions such as democracy and law. It can also distort trade, reduce economic competitiveness and enrich those who have their hands on the political process. This has been recognised now through the OECD, and a convention was developed to recommend that member countries take effective measures to deter and combat the bribery of foreign public officials in connection with international business transactions.Australia is one of 29 OECD member countries, and five others are currently in the process of indicating their interest in this convention. This is not a large group and it does not include any developing nations or countries from South-East Asia. The convention was tabled in parliament on 3 March 1998, the draft of the enabling legislation having been forwarded to the committee by the Minister for Justice, Senator Amanda Vanstone.Six public hearings have been held—four in Canberra and one each in Melbourne and Sydney. There were 38 submissions from both business and the legal community. I might point out that I was very impressed by the good and thoughtful submissions received from the legal community.The scope and objectives of the bill are limited to dealing with grand corruption, and many witnesses addressed a wide range of issues in their submissions and evidence. Because of the narrow scope of the bill it was not always possible to deal with all the matters, but the submissions that were forwarded were much appreciated.The purpose of the enabling legislation is to make it a criminal offence to bribe a foreign public official in an overseas country. A territorial connection with Australia has to be made, but the committee has broadened it to make the implementation of the legislation more effective and enforceable. Until now the Australian Taxation Office has allowed tax deductions on sums paid as facilitation payments and is separately considering changes to coincide with the convention.It is abhorrent to most of us that there is a need to pay bribes to do business, but in many countries this has become part of the culture despite efforts by many to stamp it out. The United States is the leader in the move against corruption and has already taken a number of cases under their convention, but they should not be alone. Although Australia cannot move too quickly, this latest convention gives us an opportunity to prevent major bribery occurring.We are not trying to touch the small facilitator; people in many low wage countries may expect a small supplementation to their income to ensure contracts are made and business proceeds smoothly. Many such people in developing countries only survive by this method. It is still not right, but there is an acceptance of such a need in some areas. However, this report recognises that this country is not alone in its move against corruption and that Australia must continue to support the prompt entry into force of the convention in order to assist other countries to back the process too.The legal side of the bill is quite complex and I would not do it justice by trying to describe it here, but copies of the report will be available in which these issues are all canvassed. I think the most important aspects of this are the two recommendations that relate to developing an education campaign and linking it to our AusAID programs, especially the programs that deal with good governance. Peak bodies could be enlisted to assist as well as AusAID, and ongoing funding on specific projects could be predicated on the development of good accounting standards. This will not be an easy task, but it is important that countries in this region and other nations in which Australians work are made aware that this country does not tolerate corruption and that this legislation criminalises bribery of public officials.I think the OECD convention represents an important first step against global corruption, but it is limited in scope without the weight and commitment of many more nations. So it is a start, but there is a lot more to do before we can say that the bribery practice is stamped out. The whole debate has been a worthwhile and challenging task. I would like to thank the committee clerks and the secretariat for the work they have done, along with the senators involved working with my colleague the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) in getting up this report of the subcommittee of the main committee under the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor).This report has been worthwhile. As I said, this report is the beginning of something. It does not stop bribery in the world, but it gives us a start. It shows that this country does not stand for bribery and the country is putting a stamp on something which is good and reasonable. I recommend the convention to the House.10:10:005881Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—by leave—I firstly wish to associate myself completely with the remarks of the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Adams). I think he very well acquitted the tasks of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and the subcommittee which was looking in particular at the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery and the draft implementing legislation, which was sent to the committee by the Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone. I think the member for Lyons has encapsulated the central arguments of the underlying philosophy the committee and the subcommittee as a whole have taken to this particular convention so I will not repeat his comments here but merely endorse them.I would also like to congratulate Minister Vanstone for having a place in history as the first minister to draft legislation relating to a potential treaty this country would ratify, and to send it on to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for a holus assessment, if you like, of the matters and the implications of the matters contained within the treaty we were considering. I think this is another sign of the maturing of the treaty making process. As the member for Groom (Mr Taylor), the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, rightly said in his observations this morning, the treaty making process in this country now is open, is accountable and is no longer contrived or signed away and ratified in smoke-filled rooms or in funny corridors with fading carpet in far-flung cities around the world. We now have it all out on the table for everyone to see. I think this in itself is important to note.I want to deal quickly with a couple of the important matters I thought should be highlighted in regard to this 16th report from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, particularly the fact the committee has recommended to the parliament—and then I would hope to the executive—the need to look at ways of extending the nexus of control on those who may participate in international bribery, the bribing of foreign public officials. Bribery distorts outcomes. Bribery brings about in itself a great deal of harm to the economies of, in a lot of cases, Third World countries as well as to our own economy. We have recommended we look—rather like with the Crimes (Child Sex Tourism) Amendment Act—at a range of nexus for application through this treaty, which is a good thing. I would certainly encourage the executive to look at the full range—citizenry and other nexus—as the means to apply the laws and the proposed legislation.I would also like to highlight the fact that members of the committee have worked together on so many reports now for so long. It is not because we are all rampant internationalists. I think every member of this committee would stand proudly on any occasion and say they are Australian first and foremost, which is the underlying logic of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—`what is in it for Australia'? We have found it frustrating for the good news of our work to travel slowly, even through the bureaucracies. Departments have come to us on occasions and presented us with information which has not spelt out `what is in it for Australia' as clearly as we would like. We have never hesitated on any occasion to criticise and to punish in a verbal sense the poor submissions put to us.I find it fascinating and frustrating that the conspiracy theorists, headed by the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) and those who surround her, continue to try to perpetuate the myth that treaties are negotiated in secret. I find it offensive not only to the work of this parliament but to the 1,750 organisations and individuals who have made their views known to the committee through the 110 treaties we have examined in the 16 reports we have put to the parliament. Having people running around offering in public debate falsehoods, blatant lies, about what is occurring in this process is, I think, offensive to all of the individuals and organisations who bothered to contribute to the process.Good news does not travel fast, but I invite the member for Oxley and those who are using her—those who are her puppet masters and those who are simply, as the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott) has said on many occasions, using her as a tool, as a focus for fundraising, personal fundraising more often than not—to stop and take account of the real damage they are doing to the fabric of our society by the continuation of the perpetuation of this myth.I am not going to speak for members in general on the opposition side of the chamber, but I am certain every opposition member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties welcomes the treaty making process which has been embarked upon since the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) on 2 May 1996 announced this committee and this new treaty making process. Some have privately conceded they wished their own party when in power had embarked on a similar process. I think on this there is a joint feeling of determination to make sure `what is in it for Australia' is the criteria, the test which is applied on every occasion. I invite the member for Oxley, and those who surround her with this misleading rubbish they go on with on a constant basis, to stop and take stock of just how downright unAustralian their conduct really is.10:16:005882McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—This may or may not be the last time that one of the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—and in this case there are two—will be presented to parliament, depending on how long this particular parliament lasts. I will place on record, from the opposition's point of view, our appreciation of the work undertaken by the chairman in particular. It really was an exceptionally heavy workload that he personally took on. He took it on with great determination and administered the committee without fear or favour. Indeed, if anyone needed a serve, whether they be a minister, a bureaucrat or whomever, he did not hesitate to give them a serve where necessary. That is really something that the parliament can be proud of: a multiparty joint house committee undertaking its work with enthusiasm and without fear or favour.The fundamental principle that has governed the work of the treaty's committee is, as the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) said, determining what treaty action is or is not in Australia's interests. To ascertain that, we have emphasised that there has to be consultation. That consultation is really a statement of a fundamental principle: before any person is affected, particularly before any person is affected to their detriment, they are entitled to be heard, they are entitled to have their say on the issue.I think in some significant way the treaties committee has been responsible for bringing about a form of participatory democracy whereby citizens have been able to actually participate in the decision making as to whether the executive of this country takes or does not take some particular course of action. In respect of the bribery treaty, we have actually recommended amending a legislative framework. I go so far as to predict that much of the methodology that has been adopted by the treaties committee will become more widespread throughout the committee system, in particular having a constructive role in the actual development of legislation.I really rose to speak more on the dissenting report contained in the Fifteenth Report. That is a dissent regarding the denunciation of ILO treaty No. 9. That ILO treaty related to the engagement of seamen. It is a situation where the industry is in a state of development and progress, with appropriate consultation between the employers and the industrial organisations involved. The problem with ILO treaty No. 9, according to reports given to the government, was that it focused upon an industry pooling arrangement, whereas the industry is moving towards—and has all but moved to—company based employment.The facts of the matter are that, regrettably—and the majority report noted this—there was inappropriate consultation. The decision was made on 18 December 1997 to denounce the treaty. It was not until 23 February 1998 that the Australian Council of Trade Unions was advised. Really by way of a gesture, a copy of that letter was sent to the Maritime Union of Australia which was the organisation representing actual workers engaged in the industry. The terms of that letter were communicating a fait accompli rather than inviting discussion. Indeed, it is still the case that the minister has failed to respond to correspondence from the Maritime Union of Australia expressing their concerns regarding the lack of the consultation process.The majority report has recommended that in light of the denunciation of ILO convention No. 9, Australia ratify a subsequent convention called ILO No. 179 which is about prescribing appropriate regulation of the seamen's engagement system. Fundamentally, it says there has to be appropriate regulation by people who are trained and qualified in the area. The majority report has recommended that, but we say it is essential to safety, not only of the seafarers but also of the vessels, that it be in place before ILO convention No. 9 is denounced. Obviously, if a vessel goes down on Australia's shores it has the potential for catastrophic environmental consequences.I will conclude my contribution by saying again that the member for Oxley regards international conventions as some sort of international conspiracy to take over Australia's sovereignty, and that is rubbish. There is no international parliament. The mere fact that Australia enters into a treaty is a declaration of our sovereignty and our decision to freely enter into a contract with another country or countries. No issue is of more importance to Australian workers than maintaining international labour standards. It is absolutely fanciful to assume that Australia is going to be able to maintain its current living standards unless the working conditions of our trading competitors, particularly in our immediate region, are lifted.President Clinton is on record recently giving a speech to the World Trade Organisation. He said, `We are all in a global economy, whether we like it not. What the challenge to the industrialised nations is, is to ensure that there is a spiral of those on lower conditions upwards and that there is not, as a result of competition, a downward spiral for those who have decent conditions down to the lowest common denominator.' The only way that can be prevented is by maintaining proper International Labour Organisation standards around the world. We have expressed our regret in the report that there does appear to be a lack of commitment on the part of the government to those standards, and we say that is particularly short-sighted.5883Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—I move:That the House take note of the reports.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous588310:23:005883Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 8 April to 1 July 1998.Parliamentary Zone5883588310:24:005883Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLPMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals for works in the Parliamentary Zone which were presented to the House on 22 and 25 June 1998, namely:(a) introduction of parking restrictions at East Block carpark;(b) introduction of parking restrictions at West Block western carpark access road;(c) construction of an international flag display on the Lake Burley Griffin foreshore;(d) construction of pedestrian and cycle access, Commonwealth Avenue Bridge and Kings Avenue Bridge approaches;(e) demolition of old Parliament House Annex;(f) refurbishment of old Parliament House Library external works; and(g) revised proposal to undertake minor roadworks in front of old Parliament House.This motion concerns a number of minor works in the Parliamentary Zone for which the approval of both houses is required under the terms of the Parliament Act 1974. Each of the proposals has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the committee has determined that they need not inquire into the works. I commend the works to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees588458845884Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(1) That, if the House is not sitting when any committee consisting of Members of the House and Senators has completed a report of an inquiry, the committee may send the report to the Speaker, or, in the absence or unavailability of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker. Upon receipt of the report by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker:(a) the publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; and(b) the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is authorised to give directions for the printing and circulation of the report.(2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing and sessional orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders.(3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.58845884Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:(1) That, if the House is not sitting when a committee appointed pursuant to Standing Order 28B has completed a report of an inquiry, the committee may send the report to the Speaker, or, in the absence or unavailability of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker. Upon receipt of the report by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker:(a) the publication of the report is authorised by this resolution; and(b) the Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be, is authorised to give directions for the printing and circulation of the report.(2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing and sessional orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders. Miscellaneous58845884Debate resumed from 1 July, on motion by Mr Reith: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.10:27:005884Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—in reply—This motion was the subject of debate last night. It was adjourned on the understanding that the motion would be put this morning and the process would proceed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills5884r551Consideration resumed from 29 June.588410:28:005884Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I move:That the bill be read a second time.I shall not speak very long on the bill at this time because when I introduced it on Monday, 29 June I gave details of the bill and what it implied for the residents who live near Adelaide airport. It is not appropriate that I go through those details now, as they are available in that introductory speech.I would just like to say at this time that the bill was introduced to give security to residents who live around Adelaide airport. Adelaide airport is built right in the middle of a residential area. There are residences built on the east side, the south side and the north side. These people are badly affected by the aircraft that take off during the day, but that is part of the penalty they pay for living near an airport. But, because they live near an airport, they do not forfeit their right to a proper night's sleep. The purpose of this bill is to put the existing administrative curfew into legislation.The reason why this is important is that over time there has been a gradual erosion of that very curfew, and the people living around the airport are concerned that, unless the curfew is legislated, there will be an eating away of the curfew and that one day they will wake up to find there are large, heavy aircraft coming into the airport at 3 o'clock in the morning and none of them will be able to get any sleep. Should that happen, they would also find that they probably could not sell their houses to move to another area. To give them the security that they require, we are not changing the present situation, we are simply saying that this curfew, as it exists at present, with some exceptions which I referred to in my introductory speech, will be legislated.If we go back to the early 1990s, we see there was very little breaking of the curfew. It was, in fact, the Labor government at that time that decided to break the curfew by bringing in an international passenger flight at 5.05 in the morning. In respect of the Labor Party, may I say that it did specify that jet had to be of the new generation of silent jets, it could not use reverse thrust greater than idle on landing and it was to come in over the sea. I took a survey following that flight coming in to see the effect on my residents. I must say that there was very little complaint about that one plane. Since then there have been other erosions of the curfew, and it is to stop further erosions that we wish to put it in legislation.But I say to the Labor Party that what is disappointing about its reaction, now that we are getting towards an election, is the hypocrisy and the comments that its candidate has made on radio suggesting that all excursions into the curfew should be wound back when it was, in fact, the Labor Party which made those breaks in the curfew. That is all I wish to say at this moment. I understand that the opposition does have some amendments to the bill, and I will be speaking on those amendments.8V5WORTHMs Worth—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.10:33:005885Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—There are certain perennial features of Australian politics that characterise history over an extended period of time. One of them is that, as you approach an election, people bob up and start talking about railways. Last week the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) suddenly found that he could give his endorsement, if not any money, to a grand visionary rail project and, presumably, it will not be all that long before the other feature starts to surface; that is, the turn the rivers inland project.But it would now seem that we have to add another to the list of the regular, immediate pre-election period announcements as a basis for getting an idea as to when an election is imminent. That is the Adelaide airport curfew legislation. We had the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus) introduce this legislation—albeit in slightly different form—in 1995, shortly before an election was due. Not much has been heard of the issue since then, certainly not in this parliament, but lo and behold, just as we are in the immediate pre-election period and we are months away from an election, it has resurfaced; she has bobbed up again. No doubt we can look forward to the prospect of this matter actually reaching the Senate, if it passes this House, roughly around the year 2001, just in time for another election.So we in the opposition are somewhat sceptical about the motives behind this bill. It really is a sign of the desperation of the member for Hindmarsh, who clearly has both the Labor candidate and fear about One Nation on her mind. It really is a sign of desperation that she suddenly decided that, after having let it sit there for three years, this now needs to be revived.I think it is also worth pointing out that it is a sign of the hypocrisy of the government that it is prepared to have this bill, a private member's bill, brought on for debate and resolution in this chamber but not the bill which the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) wishes to move and debate on very similar issues, on issues associated with the management of aircraft noise at Sydney airport. He is not allowed to have his bill debated. I cannot see any real difference between the two pieces of legislation. They both seek to protect local residents in the immediate vicinity of major airports, yet one of them— from a government member—is seen as being appropriate to be debated in this chamber and the other—that just happens to be moved by somebody who has actually resigned from the government because of its mishandling of the airport noise question with respect to Sydney airport—is deemed unsuitable for consideration by this parliament.I turn to some of the details. I would indicate that the opposition supports the bill because essentially it entrenches the status quo. However, we do wish to move some amendments which would put the heat on the government to actually act on what are substantially greater problems with respect to Adelaide airport aircraft noise and to reaffirm the commitment that was made by the former minister, the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop), who is sitting at the table today, with respect to insulation for the worst noise affected homes in the immediate vicinity of Adelaide airport. It will be very interesting to see how the government actually responds to that proposal.The bill that is before us, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998 , imposes a curfew on all aircraft over 34 tonnes between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Some smaller aircraft are excluded from operating during the curfew period if they do not meet certain noise criteria. There is a range of exempt categories which allow for things like aircraft in distress, search and rescue, medical emergencies and the like, all of which are perfectly reasonable exceptions. There is a shoulder period between 11 p.m. and midnight and between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., and the minister can make regulations with respect to this period to prescribe a maximum number of takeoffs and a maximum number of landings by international passenger aircraft during this period. The effect of this is that the curfew applies only to international passenger aircraft between midnight and 5 a.m. The minister can also make regulations to allow for up to eight movements per week during the curfew period by heavy freight aircraft, provided that there are no B727 movements and no more than four DC9 movements.These issues are always difficult for governments because governments have to ensure that airports provide maximum economic development for the hinterlands that they serve and, at the same time, minimum disruption, noise intrusion and environmental damage to the local communities in which they are situated. It is always a case of reaching a balance between those two, often conflicting, objectives. We must ensure that the local community is protected but at the same time that the city or the broader community served by the airport has its economic development maximised. If there is anywhere in mainland Australia that is in desperate need of greater economic development and more aircraft taking freight from it and bringing passengers and tourists to it, it is Adelaide. It is of great concern to the opposition that that balance is correct—that the protection for people in the immediate vicinity of the airport is maximised but not at the cost of substantial reductions in the opportunities for economic development and jobs in South Australia.The bill effectively enshrines the existing arrangements which have been described by the term `administrative curfew' and it does allow for a significant expansion of international traffic during the shoulder period. It does nothing to ensure that the current international services operating into Adelaide during that period are not replaced by larger services with larger and louder aircraft. The current curfew does nothing, and this legislative curfew will do nothing, to assist those people who live in the immediate vicinity of the airport under the flight paths and who have substantial problems with existing noise, particularly in the early to mid evening when they are, for example, trying to get young children to sleep. They have to suffer the disruption caused by the normal operations of the airport. It will not help the occasional shiftworker, for example, who lives in the immediate vicinity of the airport and who has to sleep during the day. Nor will it help the elderly or a range of people who live near the airport and who are seriously affected by aircraft noise.It does not deal with other noise problems associated with Adelaide airport which have been drawn to my attention on several occasions. I have had several meetings with residents and representatives from groups of people who are affected by aircraft noise around Adelaide airport. A number of issues have been raised with me that are not addressed by this bill, such as the testing of jet engines on the ground, sometimes at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. It does not deal with the fact that Adelaide airport is currently being used for helicopter training purposes, which means that residents are affected by helicopters flying around, doing circuits and the like, which should not be occurring over residential areas.So this bill is by no means a panacea for the problems of aircraft noise associated with Adelaide airport. It does entrench the status quo in legislation. It does raise some questions about the integrity of the sale process for the Adelaide airport, but I understand that the new owners have agreed to support the legislation. The key thing is that it does not really address the one critical issue that the Commonwealth government should be addressing, and that is the issue of insulation for people living in the immediate vicinity of the airport. As I have indicated, I will shortly be moving amendments that do relate to that proposal.The opposition supports the legislation. We will watch with some interest to see how it goes. If it is successful in passing through this chamber we will watch with some interest what happens in the Senate. We suspect that it may well surface in the Senate at some time shortly prior to the federal election scheduled after the one that is due within the next six or seven months or so. The residents of Hindmarsh are entitled to be a little cynical about the motives of their member, who introduced this legislation just before the 1996 election and is reviving it just before the 1998, or perhaps early 1999, election.10:41:005887Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I am happy to second this motion today, not only because of the effect that it has on some of the residents in my own electorate of Adelaide, but also because I am keen to support the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus), who is indeed a very good member who stands up for her electorate and is always conscious of the needs of her own constituents.I was a little surprised to hear the previous speaker, the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner), embark on a story about hypocrisy and railways. That gives me the opportunity to briefly comment on some of those remarks. It is way out of line for Labor to talk about hypocrisy and railways in the same speech. Labor's mismanagement of Australian National over the years prior to the sale saw thousands of jobs go from that industry in South Australia. It was only when we came to government, and I pay tribute to previous Minister Sharp and current Minister Vaile for some of the reforms that have taken place in that area, that rail got back on track—no pun intended. The sale of Australian National went ahead with the support of the public transport union and other unions. It was a privilege to work with those people. The new owners have increased passenger services and freight haulage, and they are making a profit instead of a loss.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to debate these issues with the honourable member for Adelaide at any time, but they are hardly relevant to the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill that is before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Adelaide will return to the bill, although I understand that the honourable member is making passing references to some passing references made by the honourable member for Melbourne in his speech. I hope that the honourable member for Adelaide will return very quickly to the bill.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I shall do that. It was astute of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to so keenly understand precisely what I was doing. I had not intended to mention any of these things if it had not been for the comments made by the previous speaker. In passing, I just say that the new owners of Australian National have increased passenger services and freight haulage. That is good for jobs in the rail industry because we can see them only increasing in the future. In reference to the bill, he quite wisely commented on the economic need for Adelaide to be well connected with the rest of Australia and the rest of the world. I was pleased to hear him supporting this bill and recognising that the economic advantages must be in harmony with the needs of the local community. That is exactly what this bill is doing and I again compliment the member for Hindmarsh on bringing it before the House.I would hope, as the last speaker mentioned, that this bill will progress rapidly to the Senate. As one who these days has to get legislation through this chamber and then to the Senate, I can only say that it is very much easier to get it through the House of Representatives. It gets bogged down in extraordinary ways in the Senate. Even when the opposition in this chamber is in absolute agreement—as in the legislation I hope to be through the Senate shortly—we can still have stumbling blocks because, of course, they do not have the gag up there. Even when you have the numbers, things can get bogged down. So I do not think we can blame the member for Hindmarsh—or, for that matter, the government—for the delays in what happens in the Senate sometimes.To return to the detail of this bill—and the member for Hindmarsh has spoken extensively about the detail—the curfew will be enshrined in legislation as is currently available through the administrative arrangements. As the member for Hindmarsh has already pointed out, that gives security and predictability to those people who live near the airport and those who are in the flight path of planes coming into the Adelaide airport. Yesterday I telephoned Airservices to find out the number of complaints from people in my own electorate and what they were about. In the last three-month period—from 1 April to 30 June—there have been nine phone calls: two from North Adelaide, two from Mile End, three from Thebarton, one from Thorngate and one from Parkside. Interestingly enough, none of those, when I sought the detail of them, were actually about the curfew. That means that people who choose to live where they are living now—relying on those curfew arrangements—are happy with them. The people who have rung in have had concerns when something unusual has happened—such as police helicopter flights—but of course we know that law and order is an issue, so I am sure that when they understood what that was about they were happy with that. Weather conditions sent a plane or two over Parkside and I think somebody from there rang in to find out why that was the case.I again congratulate the member for Hindmarsh for understanding the needs of her constituents, and in fact my own, and bringing this bill before the House, so giving me the opportunity to speak briefly on it.10:48:005888Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—Last night I spoke on the suspension of standing and sessional orders, which I was very pleased to support. I will not make much reference today to the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998 , except to say that I support the bill. I would like to make a couple of passing comments and draw those to the attention of the House. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus) said absolutely nothing about a cap on the airport, and there is nothing more important than to have a cap in legislation. I would like the honourable member for Hindmarsh to know and to listen to some of the experiences that we have had in Sydney over a very long time. It is a very difficult issue, but an issue that can be resolved. If the honourable member for Hindmarsh is fair dinkum—as the saying goes—then I would urge her to include as an amendment or addendum to her bill that there be a cap.How many planes is the honourable member for Hindmarsh prepared to accept over her residents—60 planes an hour, 70 planes an hour, 80 planes an hour? I might just say that only two days ago the member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly)—a member of the government—said that Sydney airport should lift the cap and go from 80 movements an hour—wait for this—to 120 movements an hour over one million residents of Sydney. This is what a member of the government is saying. I am suggesting to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that, if she is fair dinkum, she should put forward an addendum to her bill and enshrine in legislation a cap on the airport.The other thing that I want to draw to the attention of the House is the matter of the health of the residents. There has not been a definitive test conducted anywhere in Australia that can prove to the residents under the flight paths that the carcinogenic effects of the emissions from the aircraft—known colloquially as black rain—are nothing to worry about. The honourable member for Hindmarsh has heard me raise in this parliament the matter of the aircraft emissions. In fact, I took it upon myself to send her a copy of the 1997 report on the effects on health of residents under flight paths, especially the effects on children. I think it would have been a good thing if, in her comments to this House, the honourable member for Hindmarsh had made some reference to the concerns she has, as I have, for the health and wellbeing of people who live under the flight paths.I want to raise one final item before I resume my seat, and this matter is in regard to insulation. I am very surprised that the honourable member for Hindmarsh has said absolutely nothing about compensation for insulation for those who are so badly affected by aircraft notice that it affects not only their health but their marriage, the way that they work and their psychological wellbeing. While a curfew is a very good idea—and we obviously all have to support it, as we have supported it in Sydney—let me remind the member for Hindmarsh that the curfew is intended between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. Is that what you are proposing?CU4GALLUSMrs Gallus—Yes.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—Like Sydney airport—between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.—and that is fine, but I would ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh whether she has taken any surveys as to how many people in her electorate are shiftworkers. I have done that survey in my electorate. I would like to mention to the honourable member for Hindmarsh how difficult it is for us to say that it is fine to have a curfew but no cap. There are people who finish work and get home at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning after having worked at night, and all of a sudden that is when the planes start—and the planes continue and continue. Those people cannot sleep because they have just come home from work and then they have to go to work later that evening.All in all, in summing up, I am concerned that there was no mention of a cap, I am concerned that there was no mention of the effects on the health of the residents and I am concerned that no mention was made of compensation for insulation. I heard the shadow minister, the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner), make reference to possible amendments that he wishes to put forward on behalf of the opposition. I will be glad to see the amendments before I support them or otherwise. I thank the House for giving me the time to mention these few matters. My Sydney Airports Bill 1998 would have gone a long way to addressing some of the concerns of the member for Hindmarsh. I note that, every time I have raised this matter in this parliament, the member for Hindmarsh has voted against me bringing the bill forward.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I call the member for Hindmarsh.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand that you are only allowed to speak once in a second reading debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Hindmarsh is the proposer of this bill; she moved the motion. She can close the debate and has a right of reply.10:54:005889Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—in reply—In summing up the debate on the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998 , I will first address the remarks of the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit). I invite you to Adelaide airport sometime. You will find that a cap on the movements during the daytime is not actually a problem. We are not Sydney airport; we do not have flights going over every two minutes. In fact, the owners of Adelaide airport, the government and, I believe, the residents would like to see an increase in the number of flights during the day to help the economic wellbeing of South Australia. I note that the shadow minister, the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner), did mention that we need more economic development in South Australia and, indeed, would welcome more flights during the daytime to assist in the opening up of both the export of goods and the import of tourists into South Australia. I say to the member for Lowe: this is not an issue for Adelaide airport at this time.The shadow minister was very unfair in suggesting this is somehow an election ploy, and, if I can catch the attention of the shadow minister at the table, I would like to actually address my remarks to him. I did not take over the electorate which includes the airport until the 1993 election.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I am not attacking you for what happened before 1995.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—It was not actually until after the Labor Party allowed in the pre-curfew flights at 5.05 in the morning that aircraft noise became an issue. It became an issue because of a number of things: firstly, these early morning flights; secondly, some heavy freight aircraft were allowed in during the night; and, thirdly, there was a great increase in helicopter traffic—that has also been mentioned, and I will get to that later.These concerns of the residents did build up, and, with that, came the recognition that there was a need for a curfew to be enshrined in legislation so that the current administrative curfew was not further eaten away. In response to that, I did bring up the possibility of enshrining the curfew in legislation. I remind the member that we were actually in opposition at that time. There was nothing I could do from opposition, but I did get the agreement of the then shadow ministry that we could go ahead. At that stage, I started looking at a curfew bill.I found that, once you are in government, these things are not as easy as they first appear. From the minute we got into government in 1996, I have been working on this bill. If you went to my constituents, you would be aware of this; they have followed my progress on this matter in my newsletters. There were a number of things to be taken into consideration: firstly, how this was going to effect potential bidders on the airport as it was going to be up for lease; and, secondly, at first, the state government was very strongly opposed to a legislated curfew. It took a lot of meetings with the South Australian trans port minister, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, who was very sympathetic but had to be convinced, as did the Premier, that this was not going to be detrimental to the economic development of South Australia.There was a long period of negotiation with the state government. We then had the problem of the tenderers for Adelaide airport. It was finally agreed with the cabinet that they would give permission for a legislated curfew, but this had to be conveyed to all those people who were tendering for the airport so they could take it into account, to see if it affected their desire to tender or the amount for which they were prepared to tender.Again, this was a long and involved process. It is not just that you snap your fingers and say, `Today, I will enact a curfew.' It takes negotiation, you have setbacks, you have people against it. Also, there were some business interests who felt that this was not an appropriate way to go, and I needed to consult with them. In fact, it was not until quite early this year that cabinet agreed to give approval for a legislated curfew, and, following that, we had to inform all the tenderers for Adelaide airport. That could not go ahead until they knew and accepted that that would be part of the tendering process.I say to the honourable shadow minister that I have answered what were simply point scoring and extremely unfair exercises on his part. Getting this curfew into legislation is something that I have been working solidly on for the last two years. It is not something that I arrived at easily. It took an enormous amount of work and many meetings. I am very happy now to get it into this House.The shadow minister also mentioned helicopter noise. I am pleased to tell him that I have been working very hard on the matter of helicopter noise, because it affects residents in my electorate who live near Brooklyn Park. That is where the helicopter base is and the residents hear them take off. We cannot move the helicopter base, but I have an agreement from both Lloyds Helicopters and Norris Helicopters that they will attempt to reach a height of 1,500 feet before they move laterally over the suburbs. That is the first concession. The second concession is that, when they go to the city or move to the north, they will go across Kooyonga golf course and not across the residences. Also, when they go out to the west and the south, they will go across the Glenelg sewerage treatment works, and again not across residences. The third concession I got was from Starforce. Obviously, if there is an emergency they go straight to it, and we would not want to change that in any way, but they will not do any practice runs over the residences of Brooklyn Park and Lockleys, as they are already the ones affected by the helicopters taking off. This is a concession from them that, when they do their practice runs, they will not be over the areas near the airport but that they will move away from the airport to do that.I am pleased to tell the shadow minister at the table that I have indeed been dealing with helicopter flights, and since I have had those negotiations we have seen an enormous improvement. Over the last month there have been only two complaints whereas in the previous month there were something like 25 complaints, although I will not swear to that exact number.The shadow minister has also raised the question of insulation. That is not as easy a subject as he would like to suggest. Although the Labor Party did not do it in the 13 years they were in government, suddenly, now that the election is coming up, the shadow minister has said that the next Labor government will insulate the houses within the 30 ANEF band. There is a bit of a problem with this. The 30 ANEF band is an average. Microphones are not set in the residences which show that some people have more noise than others. It is an average over an area. That means that some people who are affected more by the noise of aeroplanes do not qualify for the insulation while people who may be affected less do qualify. In one street you might find somebody on one side who receives insulation and another person directly opposite who does not. It is not an ideal solution.Further, the present ANEF bands are not appropriate (a) to the extended runway and (b) to the different height of the extended runway. I have discussed this with Airservices and they say that basically the current 30 ANEF band is absolutely useless for working out who would be noise affected. Taking these two matters into consideration, I am working with the state Minister for Transport and Urban Planning, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, the Hon. Mark Vaile, Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Airservices and the new owners of the airport to see what we can do for those people who are most directly affected by noise.A third point about the insulation is that I have approached some of the people in the area and explained to them that the 30 ANEF band insulation comes as a total package. I believe that the shadow minister has said that he would copy what was done in Sydney. When I have put this to some of my residents who I think would qualify for the insulation—although I must say it is very hard to say whether they would or not—and told them they will have to hermetically seal their house, including sealing the air vents in the wall, under the door and around the windows, and put in air conditioning so there is no fresh air entering their house, they have been absolutely horrified. A couple of people have said to me, `If that is the choice, thanks, I will take the noise.'What the shadow minister has come up with looks like a quick and easy solution. It is not an easy and quick solution. That does not mean that we forget those people who have this increased noise. It means that we try to look for an improved solution. We do not take the quick and easy `this sounds like a good electoral gimmick' solution. We need to look at the new 30 ANEF bands, with the extension of the runway and the different height of the runway, and we need to work harder on what we can do for those people.As I said, this is something I am devoting an enormous amount of time to both with the state Minister for Transport and Urban Planning, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, and the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon. Mark Vaile. We hope to come up with a solution, but let's not take a bad solution. If we have to spend the $30 million which it costs to put in this insulation, for heaven's sake, let's do it properly and not simply as an election gimmick.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.5892Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:07:005892Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2, omit "This Act", substitute "Subject to subsection (2), this Act".(2) Clause 2, page 2, at the end of the clause, add:"(2) This Act shall not commence unless Adelaide Airport is a qualifying airport in terms of Section 6 of the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995 ".The two amendments which are circulated in my name are extremely brief. They are designed to amend the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998 to ensure that it does not come into effect until such time as the government takes action to offer insulation to the residents living immediately in the vicinity of Adelaide airport, on exactly the same basis as it is offered to residents living in the immediate vicinity of Sydney airport. The opposition will vote for the bill whether or not my amendments are accepted, so they are not in any way intended to derail the legislation, but they are intended to put the heat on the government to see precisely where they stand on this issue.These amendments are simply about ensuring that there is equity on these issues across the country. If you are a resident living near Adelaide airport, then the noise that you suffer is no different from the noise that you suffer if you live immediately near Sydney airport, Perth airport, Brisbane airport or wherever. Provided the measurement is an accurate reflection of the noise, noise is the same regardless of geographic location. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that if there is an established entitlement for people in Sydney to have their house insulated, if they so choose, based on the proceeds of a very small ticket tax of $3 or so per passenger ticket with respect to that airport, then that right should be available to any other person who is in precisely the same situation as the person in Sydney.Obviously, in Adelaide and Perth and so forth, the number of people who are affected in this way is much smaller than the number of people affected in Sydney. That is simply the nature of both the demand for the airport services and also the distribution of residents in the immediate vicinity of all those airports. Nonetheless, there are some—and in Adelaide it is several hundred—who are affected as adversely by the airport as a much larger number of people in Sydney are. That larger number of people in Sydney have an entitlement to insulation should they so choose. And not everybody has taken that up.I would like to respond quickly to some of the observations that were made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus). First, the claim that this is an election stunt by the opposition: this was announced in the wake of the introduction of insulation in Sydney, which occurred in 1994, from memory. The honourable shadow minister at the table may correct me, but from memory it was 1994. It was announced—after that insulation was up and running and proved to be appropriate and successful—by the then minister that this would be extended to all other airports in Australia where the same problem existed. Shortly after becoming the shadow minister I made statements in the media indicating that we would continue with that position. We have recently announced that formally. But there has been no secret about the Labor Party's position on this issue going back to the time when insulation was first introduced at Sydney airport.Second, the question about the validity of the ANEF measurement: when the topography of Adelaide airport changes, and when we have an extended runway and the like, clearly that will lead to the ANEF contours changing as a result. Clearly the new contours will be the indicator of where any entitlement to insulation would exist. It is widely recognised that the ANEF measurement is not absolutely 100 per cent perfect. It is difficult to develop an equation that measures regularity, intensity, et cetera of noise; so it is not a perfect measurement. Clearly one of things that needs to be done by government, and by Airservices and the like, is to work to further improve that measurement.But the alternative implicitly suggested in the contribution of the member for Hindmarsh is that we do nothing. Because we do not have an absolutely perfect measurement—because we cannot say that there is an exact quantity of noise that this house gets here and an exact quantity of noise that the house next to it gets there—we should do nothing, is an absurd proposition. We are doing it in Sydney. There are plenty of houses, plenty of public buildings, plenty of schools and plenty of churches that have been insulated in Sydney at the request of the occupants.The other statement that the honourable member for Hindmarsh makes is that there are all these people there who do not want it. I have not had the same experience. Obviously insulation is not a perfect solution either, but experience in Sydney suggests that most people actually do want it. Our amendments and our policy proposal do not make insulation compulsory. If you do not want it, you just say no. I would venture to suggest that, when the Beazley Labor government is elected within a matter of months and this policy is implemented, the vast majority of people who do qualify for it will say yes, as was the case in Sydney, because although it does not solve the problem of aircraft noise 100 per cent it does substantially ameliorate it. So it is absolutely absurd to suggest that we should do nothing because the present measurement is not perfect. (Time expired)11:12:005893Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I am glad to hear that the shadow minister, the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner), said the present measurements are not ideal. They certainly are not. It is incumbent on us to see if there is any better way we can do this, and that is exactly what I said I was working on. The shadow minister implied that I said, `Let's not go ahead with anything because it is not ideal.' Had he been listening, he would have noticed that that is not what I said. I said we are working at it. I am working on it with the council and I am working on it with the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) and we are trying to find a much better way of doing it. I have also indicated that we have to do something for the people in that area, and that is exactly what I am looking at.The shadow minister also said, `If they do not want it, they do not have to have it.' That is true, but under the Sydney regulations they could not have it halfway. All they were allowed was to take the whole lot. They had to have all fresh air taken off by hermetically sealing their house. They could not have it partially. I have checked on that and that is exactly it: they had to have the whole package or none at all. Whereas some of my people would like to say, yes, they would like double glazing, on the Sydney rules they could not have that. So you cannot have half measures.I will be opposing the amendments, not because I am not concerned about people under the flight path and do not want to find a solution—and perhaps the solution that the shadow minister has come across may be the only one; I do not think so—but this is something we will be looking at. When this bill goes to the Senate we can debate this further. Can I say at this time that the amendments that the shadow minister has moved to this bill are totally and utterly inappropriate. This is a curfew bill. It is not a levy on aircraft coming in. That would be for a totally different bill.If the shadow minister would like to introduce that bill, perhaps we can discuss it under the appropriate bill. You cannot use a curfew bill and decide you are going to bring in a levy bill relating to all other airports and everything else. It is not an appropriate amendment to bring in on this bill. As I said to the shadow minister, this does not stop us discussing it at another time under an appropriate bill. I certainly have enormous sympathy with those people in my electorate who have aeroplanes going over their houses and who need protection from that noise. We will be opposing the amendments, as they are totally and utterly inappropriate for a curfew bill.11:16:005893Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I would like to make a passing reference to a couple of matters that were raised by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus). I will draw them together as they specifically affect the matter of insulation. I have now had the opportunity of seeing the amendments from the opposition which I very strongly support. I grew up in inner western Sydney in Petersham, and I can tell you that the issue of aircraft noise in those days was an issue but it was not that bad, even though I could actually see the pilot in the planes as they were flying overhead. I can tell you that my mother became deaf, and I know a lot of friends in that area that I have kept in touch with over all these years have also had hearing problems.The difficulty is trying to ascertain how serious the problem is, and governments on both sides—all around the world, incidentally—have tried the best they can to ensure that that information is not made available. But the world has progressed a lot in the past 10 or 15 years specifically in regard to this issue. We now have access to community groups all around the world that assist each other and help each other to try to ensure that the people who are aircraft noise affected get the facts.If I can offer one piece of advice to the honourable member for Hindmarsh, it is this: whatever Airservices Australia tell you, whatever they say to you, do not believe them. We have all been conned by them repeatedly. I personally have been conned by them. Airservices Australia's only role in life is to ensure that they get as many planes in and as many planes out.I will say something else to the honourable member for Hindmarsh, because I think it is important that she draws on the experience that we have had over a very long period of time. We have in Australia a body known as CASA. The role of CASA is to ensure safety. I asked the head of CASA at a Sydney Airport Community Forum meeting 18 months ago or two years ago, `What is more important to you: the safety of the people in the aeroplanes or the safety of the people on the ground?' He said, `The answer is very simply this: my only role as head of CASA is to ensure the safety of the people in the aeroplanes.' I want the honourable member for Hindmarsh to note that. Their only interest is the safety of the people in the aeroplanes, and they do not care where these aeroplanes go.The honourable member for Hindmarsh said that the issue of a cap is no big deal for Adelaide airport. I would suggest that it is. If she does not believe it is a big issue, it is going to become a major issue as more and more planes start to come into Adelaide airport. I would like her to know the experience that we have had, where at given times of the day because it suits the airlines there are very few planes coming into Sydney airport—no less than 20, 25 or even 30 flights an hour. That is no big deal—people can cope with that—but when it suits the airlines in the peak periods they are getting up to 70, 80 or 90 flights an hour. They were talking of going to even more flights an hour. In fact, only a few days ago the honourable member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly) said that Sydney airport should go up to 120 flights an hour.I am suggesting to the honourable member for Hindmarsh—and it is still not too late—that if she is really fair dinkum about protecting her residents she should say, `I want to place a limit on any given hour of the day.' That would ensure that at any given hour of the day there are no more flights in and out of Adelaide airport than what people believe to be fair and reasonable. In other words, she is going to find that in the off-peak hours she might have only 10 flights an hour but in the peak hours a lot more planes than that will be coming in. That is how it is going to affect the people of Adelaide unless she says, `There has to be a limit. We are prepared to do all we can to assist industry. We are prepared to do all we can to assist the tourism industry, we are prepared to do all we can to assist the hospitality industry, but there has to be a limit in any given hour.' In other words, once the scheduled flights start arriving at a level that is uncomfortable for the residents, we are not suggesting they should not be coming into Adelaide airport; we are saying that, for the welfare and benefit of her constituents, they should reschedule to have these planes arriving and departing during the off-peak hours. (Time expired)11:21:005894Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I will speak very briefly. I am not sure that the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) deserves much of a reply. May I point out to him that he has been a traitor to his own party.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I find those comments highly offensive and I ask her to withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Yes, I think you should withdraw the word `traitor'.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—If the word `traitor' is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—No, just withdraw it—unqualified.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not need the help of the member for Kingsford-Smith.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I would wish to find another word which would describe a person who was supported by his party—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You have withdrawn the word `traitor'?CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—I have withdrawn the word `traitor'. I am seeking in my mind a word that would describe somebody who was totally supported by his party, who was put into the position—ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will resume her seat. Before I call the honourable member for Lowe, I hope he has a genuine point of order.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. My connection with the Liberal Party has absolutely nothing to do with the amendment before the House which relates to insulation.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I accept the point of order. The honourable member for Hindmarsh will direct her remarks to the content of the bill. If the honourable member for Lowe seeks the call again, he also will direct his remarks to the content of the bill.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is relevant inasmuch as the member for Lowe has indicated that his bill is not acceptable to this House. I point out to the member for Lowe that had he not left the party who had supported him so strongly, paid for his campaigns and left him in then he would have been able, as a member of the government—SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Hindmarsh is defying your ruling. You have ruled that she be relevant to the bill. She is totally ignoring your ruling.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The honourable member for Hindmarsh will speak about the content of the bill.CU4Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUS—The member for Lowe, in his comments, has indicated that he has not been able to bring his own bill before this parliament. As he chose to leave the government, perhaps that was the reason he could not. If he were in government, he would find it easier, as I have done.I move to the point of CASA. The member for Lowe has said that CASA is more interested in the safety of the planes. Well, surprise me! CASA is interested in the safety of the planes. I am stunned. On behalf of my residents, whom the planes fly over, may I thank CASA from the bottom of my heart and theirs for being interested primarily in the safety of planes. If they were not and something should happen to one of those planes, the people who would be the direct sufferers should the plane crash would be the people of my electorate. The member for Lowe has been absolutely nonsensical in criticising CASA for the safety of planes. Anything else the member for Lowe has said is simply not worth considering.23:25:005895Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The residents around Sydney airport are entitled to be outraged that we have just had the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus), a member of the government, stand up in this place and say that the reason why the private member's bill of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) to protect people around Sydney airport from aircraft noise is not going to be considered by this House is that he is not a member of the government—because he has chosen to leave the Liberal Party. In other words, there is preferential treatment for the people that she represents because she is a member of the government and that treatment will not be extended to people around Sydney airport because the honourable member for Lowe has chosen to take a stand on principle and to represent his constituents, even if that required him to leave his party, which he did serve for a very long period of time. That is an outrageous proposition. It is something that shames all people on the government side if that is their approach; in other words, you can get your way on these local issues but only if you are a member of the government.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Convicted by her own mouth.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—As the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith just pointed out, otherwise you stand to be condemned and vilified and calumniated as a traitor.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will recall there have been several points of order raised about relevance to the bill. We are now speaking about the bill affecting Adelaide and nothing else.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I accept your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was about to do exactly that. I would like to refer to a couple of points that the member for Hindmarsh did raise in her contribution. Firstly, it is incorrect to state that people in and around Sydney airport had no choices with regard to what they were offered in terms of insulation packages. They had choices about whether, for example, they wanted airconditioning or no airconditioning or the like. It is simply incorrect to say that those choices were not available to people as they would be available to people in Adelaide. If the opposition is successful, they will be able to negotiate what particular option suits them and suits the configuration of their houses in order to maximise the benefit that they can get from the insulation package in protecting them from aircraft noise.The second observation I would make is the question of the appropriateness of pursuing this issue in the context of the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill. I would point out to the honourable member that there is an Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act that has already been introduced. That has a power in it for the minister to declare a particular airport subject to this legislation. So this amendment does not seek to introduce new legislation to create a levy or anything like that; it seeks to activate existing legislation with regard to a levy that is already in place in Sydney and say, `We want to have that activated for Adelaide as well.' In the context of a debate about aircraft noise at Adelaide Airport, the appropriate means of dealing with that aircraft noise and the appropriate way of ameliorating the impact of that aircraft noise on the residents who live in the immediate vicinity it is entirely appropriate that we should be dealing with an amendment that says, `We have an established mechanism sitting here on the statute book and all that is needed for it to be triggered is about 10 words of amendment to this legislation.' That is entirely appropriate.It is a sad day for people living in the vicinity of Adelaide airport that the member for Hindmarsh, who has had this legislation sitting around for a while and who has given us a bit of a story about why it keeps bobbing up every time there is an election offing—they can form their own views about that—is now standing up here and saying, `We reject the insulation proposal because we think there are one or two imperfections in it and it may not solve the entire world's problems. We are not going to do anything for you. We are looking at it.' Based on the track record of the speed displayed with regard to this particular legislation on the curfew, `looking at it' will probably take some considerable time.We in the opposition say that everybody in Australia who lives in the immediate vicinity of a major airport should be entitled to insulation based on a small ticket tax on the basis that it is offered in Sydney. That should be done on the same basis of equality right across the country. Whatever the criteria are and if we end up with a modified ANEF because of new scientific knowledge, fine, but at this stage we have a measurement that says if you are beyond the 30 ANEF contour then you are entitled to insulation in Sydney. There is no single reason that the honourable member has given as to why the residents in her own electorate should not get the same opportunity that the residents in the electorates immediately in the vicinity of Sydney airport get. There is no reason why you should not have equality of treatment across the country. If people do not want insulation or they want a modified package, they will have that choice. They will have that choice, as they do in Sydney. (Time expired)11:30:005897Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I just want to say a few words about these amendments. I support the amendments that have been moved by the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner). I also want to say a few words in relation to Airservices Australia. I support the remarks of the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) in relation to the interest of Airservices Australia in the people on the ground. In my electorate, the flight paths are being altered and changed. There have been many complaints from residents in the areas of Cashmere, Clear Mountain, Joyner and Petrie because those flight paths have been changed. They are causing much disruption to the people. Airservices Australia came into my office and gave me some smarmy, smooth talk about how concerned they are about flight paths and helping people, but they do not mean it. In fact, I asked Airservices Australia to ensure that a representative of the Pine River Shire Council—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member for Dickson will stick to the bill. We have already gone through a number of points of order. We have established that in this debate there will be consistency and all members will speak only to the content of the bill. Petrie is not in Adelaide.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Yes, but what I am doing—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No buts.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—I am relating what I am saying to the attitude of Airservices Australia to people who are affected by aircraft noise, which is highly relevant to the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1998 . Their attitude to my constituents is the same as their attitude to the constituents in the electorate of Lowe in Sydney and their attitude to the constituents of the honourable member for Melbourne, who moved these amendments. That is what I deplore about this particular matter. Since Airservices Australia have no interest in the residents on the ground, I support the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne which will, in some respects, ameliorate the position of people on the ground. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Tanner's ) be agreed to.11:36:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)47Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G.Smith, A. C. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.79Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.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.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Worth, P. M.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Ferguson, L. D. T. Scott, B. C.Holding, A. C. McLachlan, I. M.Thomson, K. J. Dondas, N. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.5898Bill (on motion by Mrs Gallus) read a third time.Miscellaneous5898589811:43:005898Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day No. 11, private Members' business, for the second reading of the Sydney Airports Bill 1998 , being called on forthwith and the bill proceeding through all stages without delay.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—We cannot agree to that process. ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—I have moved this motion to bring forward the Sydney Airports Bill 1998 —Motion (by Mr Cadman) agreed to:That the member be not further heard.11:44:005898Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I second the motion. This is a very important matter and, given that the government has allowed— Motion (by Mr Cadman ) put: That the member be not further heard.11:48:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)75Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.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.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Worth, P. M.48Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, A. C.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.Dondas, N. M. Thomson, K. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Holding, A. C.Scott, B. C. Ferguson, L. D. T.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Cadman put):That the question be now put.A division having been called and the bells being rung—ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—Mr Deputy Speaker, I had the call. You gave me the call. I stood up and I was speaking.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I did not give you the call.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—That is exactly what happened. I was speaking—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You may have been speaking. A lot of people speak all the time but, unless they get the call, they do not have the call.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—This is a serious issue—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Resume your seat. You are out of order to stand. Lock the doors.11:54:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)78Abbott, 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. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Worth, P. M.48Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, A. C.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J.Dondas, N. M. Thomson, K. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Holding, A. C.Scott, B. C. Ferguson, L. D. T.* denotes tellerIn division—The honourable member for Lowe rising to his feet and addressing the chamber—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are on your feet now and you should not be. You are totally out of order. If you refuse to resume your seat now, I will take action immediately the division is over. Do not stand. The member for Lowe wishes to say something?ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—I had the call, Mr Deputy Speaker. You looked at me, you gave me the call.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I did not.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—The parliamentary secretary got up and said something that no-one could hear, and then you gave him the call. I think that is grossly unjust. I had the call.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In the interests of accuracy, let us remember that you had already spoken, and you are not going to speak again.DT4CREANMr Crean—But Lindsay had the call and he had not spoken, and you called him.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I did not. Perhaps if the House will be silent I could make it a little clearer for the member for Lowe. There had already been a motion carried that you be no longer heard, and you could not be heard on this issue at any time after that. That is why I certainly did not give you the call.The honourable member for Lowe continuing to address the chamber—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Lowe.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—I will not be silenced. It is disgraceful to see members opposite applying the gag and stopping me from representing my constituents.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Lowe will resume his seat or the penalty will be much worse than he is going to get as soon as I sit down. For the last time, will you resume your seat?The honourable member for Lowe continuing to address the chamber— Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I name the honourable member for Lowe.Motion (by Mr Cadman) agreed to:That the honourable member for Lowe be suspended from the service of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Lowe will leave the House or the Serjeant will escort you from the House; it is your decision. Serjeant-at-Arms, remove the member for Lowe from the House. SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am not accepting a point of order at this moment. Serjeant, do your duty. Member for Lowe, leave the House—now!The honourable member for Lowe thereupon withdrew from the chamber.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call the member for Dickson on a point of order.SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—My point of order is that I called for a division, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I didn't hear you. I call the clerk.Bills5901r5565901Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.12:03:005901O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—The Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 is not opposed by the opposition. It gives effect to the farm business management scheme funding and, as I have said in a number of contributions in other debates surrounding components of the rural adjustment scheme, this is, in fact, re-funding a program which Labor previously had in place under different names and under different categories. It constitutes part of what I have constantly described as a rural hoax.I think it is hellishly pertinent to some new information which came to light yesterday. Yesterday we saw published the media comment about the recent Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics farm survey on the financial performance of farms. Despite the fact that this survey result confirms what I have actually been saying for the last 18 months, I still have to say it was a sad piece of information that warrants an urgent response by the government.I will quote from the Australian's summary, which is absolutely correct. It says:The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics' latest Farm Survey has found that farm profits have been slashed by 80 per cent under the Howard Government.It says that that decline in farm profits has mostly hit farmers at the low end of the income scale. The 25 per cent of farmers in the small family farm category are the ones whose incomes have declined most in the last two years.This bill like this, which provides for funding to assist farmers to run their farm businesses better and which provides for assistance with technology skills and with farm business skills, is not only needed in the general sense; in the economic climate that farmers now find themselves in, absolutely and completely directly because of the policies of the Howard-Fischer coalition govern ment, this farm business skills assistance legislation becomes almost a talking point. They are not going to need better skills in running their farms; they are going to need to be money magicians. They are going to need to be Houdinis of the money bag to find some way in which to work through the situation they now find themselves in and this sorry tale.If there are any members of the coalition opposite who doubt the efficacy of these figures, I would just refer them to graph 1, section 1 on page 2 of the ABARE report and invite them to look at the figures for farm business profit. The average farm business profit in 1995-96—that is, the last year under Labor—was $9,979. Last year it was $2,000. It has fallen by 80 per cent across the board. For many farms, it is a negative figure. In fact, the figures confirm that almost 70 per cent of Australian farms are now running at a loss or break-even at best.The first question I want to ask is: why is this so? I think there are two reasons for this. First of all, the government has severely underestimated the impact of the El Nino effect on agriculture in Australia. The evidence from day one was that it was going to be more severe and was going to have a longer effect than the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) and the cabinet ever anticipated. Secondly, the government has hopelessly underestimated the downturn in demand from Asia for product.If there is any doubt about what the government actually thinks about this as an issue in the Australian economy, listen to this. I notice the member for Murray (Mrs Stone) in the chamber. I very well remember the member for Murray on an ABC television program a few years ago with a National Party former member who was on the same program and who was asking this very question: why are farmers being treated so badly by the National Party? Her answer was: because you are in the B team. That is the fact of it. The National Party find themselves around the cabinet table in the B team and unable to win support.There can be no doubt about this view. I mentioned to the Treasurer (Mr Costello) this morning that I intended to quote him authoritatively. In the Australian Financial Review on 4 September 1997—about nine months ago—the Treasurer was asked:What would be the effect on the Australian economy if there were to be a major downturn in demand for agricultural products either through the downturn in Asia or through the El Nino effect being worse than anticipated?The Treasurer's answer was:There is no need to get too pessimistic. Farm product is not a huge part of GDP.And that is the fact of it. That is how the farm sector is regarded around that cabinet table. I have no doubt that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy have been pleading the case, but they are faced with the position of being in the B team and having a Treasurer who sees the farm sector as not a huge part of GDP—so why would you worry? The reason you would worry is that there is a very direct impact on the families concerned.It is not as if I have been alone in predicting that these problems would need to be faced up to. In the Australian Financial Review of 1 April 1998, there was a headline, `Rural exports drop 9 per cent in 6 months.' That ought to have been a pretty significant signal to the government that there was going to be a problem in the Australian economy, particularly in the rural sector, with a downturn in the demand for products from the agriculture sector.The problem is due not only to the fact that the Liberals in the coalition do not see agriculture as significant in GDP or the National Party and their members who represent country areas as significant in this debate. The minister himself has created the problem. From day one they have done two things: first, they have gone back and continued the populist cant that Labor in the bush does not care about country people and has no programs that worked for country people and, second, they said that they were going to bring in a suite of programs that would make the difference. I could quote the speech given by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) when they introduced the AAA package that this bill is part of. He talked about this major bundle of money that was there to provide a support base for farmers in need in the country. It was, if I remember correctly, a $517 package called AAA: Advancing Agriculture—Australia.The very day after it was launched with great fanfare, the National Farmers Federation came out and said, `Hang on. We can find only $30 million of new money in the whole $517 million.' They had to use a microscope to find the $30 million because I went through and the best I could do was $17 million. Even the National Farmers Federation were in effect saying that $517 million worth of programs were all programs that Labor previously had in place. The only thing they have done is to divide them up, dissect them and bring them forward piece by piece as new legislation a la this bill today, call it something new and say, `Hey, look what we have done for you.'The evidence supports that what I have been saying is absolutely correct—there has been a failure to properly understand the effect on agricultural output of El Nino and the downturn in Asia. Now, faced with farm profits slashed by 80 per cent in two years, they are wondering what is happening to them in rural Australia. In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday there is an in-depth article on page 16 about two branch officials of the National Party in the minister's own electorate—Mr Roydhouse and Mr Gossage. The story tells how these fellows drove from one end of the electorate to the other helping the minister get re-elected. At last they were going to get rid of Labor; at last they were going to have a National Party primary industry minister; at last the bush was going to be cared about. Mr Gossage resigned from the National Party in disgust after going to see the minister about an issue he was concerned about. He says:When I went to see Anderson to complain . . . he asked, "Who else would you vote for?"As this fellow said in yesterday's article:By Christ, he wouldn't ask us that now.That is the fact of it. He also says in that article: I never felt so let down, so disillusioned and angry. Today people in the bush are angrier than they were with Labor.And there is only one reason for that: these people have been bitterly misled and bitterly disillusioned about the cant that has surrounded the nonsense about support for them. Just take one little example. In its first year in office, the government announced its great savings incentive. If you had so much in the bank, you were going to get a tax bonus and a saving incentive. I came in at the time and I said, `I must be missing the point. The Nationals are supposed to be representing farm people and country people. These people have the lowest incomes in Australia at the moment. Therefore, they won't have any savings. The tax figures show us they all run at a loss. How can they get any benefit?' And that, of course, is exactly the situation—and one stunt after another has been unfolded as nothing more than a rural hoax, badly exposed in this article yesterday about the decline in farm profits. With the FarmBis bill—the provision of assistance for farm management skills with the rural adjustment package—the budget allocations are going to have to get greater and greater because these mistakes have been so severe.I cannot help but refer to an article that was published in, I think, the Financial Review. I cannot see the actual date on it to quote, but I am sure members of the National Party will know it well. It is under the heading `The National Party has lost its plot'. It is written by Tom Connors, whom they will know because he is a Canberra writer whose doctoral thesis was on the National Farmers Federation. He concludes:The Country Party is unrecognisable from today's National Party. The leaders are no longer down in the paddock with the grassroots membership but have moved in with the economic rationalists. While Tim Fischer argues the case for free trade in global forums, his deputy, John Anderson, continues to ease the government out of farmers' affairs.And that is what has been taking place. This decline in farm profit and this need for drastic assistance in farm business management skills from here on—and it is a hoax to say to these people, `You are going to be able to trade your way out of this situation with better farm business management skills'—goes back to the core position of this government versus Labor's core position on primary industry issues. The minister was quoted in the Australian on 1 January last year as saying:Australia should focus more on improving its exports of raw materials rather than developing processing industries.He was quoted further on as saying:It is likely that improving the quality of our raw materials will become much more important than value adding.There is no sane person in this parliament, in this whole building, who could conceive of a cabinet minister believing that Australia's future lies in getting better at exporting raw materials rather than value adding.The only hope we have for lifting the incomes of these people and the only hope we have for putting jobs back in country towns is very firmly directed polices that push value adding, that push innovative agriculture to actually grow products that people want to buy and that produces products that are processed and value added and sophisticated in their marketing, et cetera. That a cabinet minister could actually breathe that tripe is beyond comprehension. Yet that is the statement of today's primary industry minister, and it has been raised many times in many forums and he has never once tried to walk away from it. I raised it on the Landline program and at least he came in and thumped the table and said, `I'm a value adder too.' Every policy decision that has been taken, every budget cut that has been made and every philosophical position taken with respect to farm issues has been directed in accordance with the original statement: raw materials; not value adding.I might just draw one very public and understandable example. For the first year that we were in opposition, I was placed in our resources portfolio by Kim Beazley. Not long after we went into opposition, I conveyed to the minister, Mr Anderson, a letter which offered that, if he would keep the ceiling on woodchip exports in place, Labor would guarantee bipartisan support for the construction of a pulp mill anywhere in Australia. We were saying, `Don't lift the ceiling on woodchip exports. That is just more raw materials. For heaven's sake, take the offer to put in place a pulp mill and do the value adding in Australia.' But that offer was never taken up. Instead, he lifted the ceiling on woodchips. We have been exporting more and more export woodchips, and we now have reached the point where the Burnie pulp mill is being closed. That is completely consistent with the philosophy stated in that article in the Australian back in January of last year.I will be raising that point all through the election campaign we are moving into. It will be no surprise to anybody. We will be spelling out the alternative approach, which is a value adding approach, which is a `jobs in country towns' approach.Given all that, a couple of little issues are also going to come up that people on farms are going to need every one of their business management skills to deal with. If this article, published in Wednesday's Australian entitled, `Diesel fuel sweetener for the bush' is in any way accurate—and, given the nature of the author and his links into the government, I am sure that this is the way the leak is unfolding—there will be a big win in the cut in diesel fuel price for farmers. It says that farmers are going to be zero rated for diesel fuel excise for on-farm use.Fabulous! They already get the diesel fuel rebate. They are going to have a continuation of the existing arrangements, dressed up as a win. I do not think they are silly enough to fall for that. Then they will be told that diesel purchased by a transport business will be cheaper and, if diesel is a business input, it will be cheaper. That might mean that, if you are driving kids into town in the Toyota Hilux and it is a diesel one but it is off-farm use, your fuel bill may be a little bit cheaper—if you can count the farm as being in the transport business. We will wait to see what unfolds in the tax package about that one. The vast majority of country voters in country areas live in country towns. They are looking for cheaper fuel prices for ordinary cars.SD4CADMANMr Cadman—What about the truckies—running the business?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—There is no question that the transport industry will be thrilled. We will be able to say to the country people: let's take the example of country fuel prices—which of course you characters on the other side of the House campaigned mercilessly against Labor on—and, guess what, the gap between city and country fuel prices is actually wider now than it was in 1995. If you do not believe me, check it for yourself. After all that populist cant about country fuel prices, let us take a little example: in Mildura and Melbourne there is a 10c a litre difference. Cartage costs are 1c per litre. The other 9c has nothing to do with transport.If anyone in the government is going to try to tell country people that reducing the cost of fuel to the transport industry will lead to very nice reductions in the cost of goods in country towns, you had better start fixing up petrol. It is very publicly known that 1c a litre is the cost of the transport. Even if the fuel cost is reduced to the transport industry by, say, 30 per cent, it will result in about a two-tenths of 1c per litre reduction in the transport cost. Get real if you think people are going to fall for this stuff, or fix up petrol if you want to sell the package.Let us go back to the point that I started to make about the ordinary punter driving around in his Falcon or Commodore in country towns. This article in the Australian yesterday said:City motorists will miss out on the fuel tax relief because there will be no big reductions to the excises on leaded and unleaded petrol.Fabulous! The government will be running around telling country people, `The city motorists are not getting this,' but how long do you think it is going to be before the country punter suddenly says, `Hang on, I am not getting it either'? I should not be spelling out in advance how dopey this is, but you are leaving yourselves wide open.The final point I want to make is that these people are going to need all of their farm business management skills with the application of GST to farming. Even though farmers will be paying GST on inputs to their farm operations as they do their business and then later claiming a rebate—and, presumably, getting it all back—there is a little problem. If you are planting the average wheat crop and it is costing you in the order of $400,000 to put it in and you are having to pay 10 per cent on the way in—$40,000 worth of inputs—or even if you bring it right back to a small farm, of whatever kind, with $100,000 worth of inputs, paying the 10 per cent on the way in and then claiming it back some time later in the system, someone has got to carry the cost, someone has got to do the accounting and someone has got to do the paperwork. Unless the package will pay for accountants to do this for them, you have just added another little need for some farm business management skills a la this bill.But the real cruncher comes when you look at the latest ABARE figures on the cost of operating a farm in the beef industry. I have looked them up and I have found that a farm family in the bottom 25 per cent, which actually runs at a loss and, therefore, has no money to live on at the end of the business operation, has to actually have income support. That family has probably got about $300 a week to spend—$15,000 a year. What do they do with that? They go into town and they buy food, newspapers and clothes, pay for school excursions and so on. Even if you allow that there is a little bit of sales tax on some of the things they buy and you discount that out—and my calculations are not questionable; I have not got time to go through my calculations absolutely, but I will do it outside this place for anyone who wants it—my calculations show that a family earning $15,000 a year of after business income, having to pay the 10 per cent GST in town, is between $20 and $23 a week worse off in spending power.EM6STONEMrs Stone—So you have no idea how a GST works.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—I know exactly how the GST works. If you are going to tell us that food, newspapers, clothing and all of that is exempt, then fine; I will redo the calculations. But if it is as I know it is going to be, those people's after-farm take home pay—after buying ordinary things in the town and paying the GST—will be $20 a week less. From the same ABARE figures, the top 25 per cent of farms will actually be $32 a week worse off, which is $1,500 a year.I find this bizarre. The National Party has rolled over for it. It has actually rolled over for a policy that will make its very own constituency between $1,500 and $2,000 a year worse off. That is totally demonstrable, unless they are going to tell us that all these things that people normally buy with their after-farm income will be exempt from the GST. Of course, if they are exempt, then there is no GST. We will finish up with so many exemptions that we actually do not have a GST.We will all wait with interest, but until you can demonstrate to me that you are exempting the things that people in country towns buy—those things that I have listed—then these people are being sold a pup by the very people who are meant to represent them. I go back to the comments made by Mr Gossage, because these are the very reasons why this is the case. He is a former National Party branch official in Mr Anderson's own electorate who said:I never felt so let down, so disillusioned and angry. Today people in the bush are angrier than they ever were with Labor.I can understand why.Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned.Miscellaneous5905590510000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I apologise to the House that, because of the furore occasioned by the deliberate and gross disorderly conduct of the member for Lowe, I omitted to put the final question.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I put it to you that, because of your gross mishandling of this matter earlier today, the caravan has moved on. In your haste to expel the member for Lowe from this House for wanting to stand up for his rights as a member and your mishandling of the vote after that, I put it to you that it is entirely disorderly and improper for you to try and cover your tracks now. We have already had the matter dealt with. You failed to deal with it properly.The government has called on business, which has now been transacted. I fail to see, Mr Deputy Speaker, how you can somehow or other now suspend time and go backwards to try to clear up the mess that you have made. I put to you that the procedure that you are about to follow here is grossly out of order and unless the government, or you, finds some way to resurrect the motion, you are not in a position now to deal with something that has been passed over by other matters that you have allowed the government to bring on. Unless you intend to recommit the motion, you are out of order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Watson has made his point. I do not uphold his point of order. My understanding is that the appropriate action to take is for the motion on the suspension to be put so that it can be finalised. We cannot leave it swinging in limbo. I intend to put the question.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On a further point of order, I put to you that, if you do want to cover your tracks and solve this problem, you should have the government recommit the matter. This matter is not in limbo; it has been passed over. We have had government business. We have been speaking on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Watson has made his point. He will resume his seat.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You cannot compound your former folly with another folly. Unless you recommit it, you will find later that you will have to come back in here and do the same thing again. Why not eat a bit of humble pie the way you should, recommit the motion and we will deal with it properly?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Watson. I am not worried about eating humble pie. I have already apologised to the House and there are plenty of precedents. I think this happened even when you were Speaker in this place.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I never mucked anything up like this. There is no doubt about that. This is the second or third time that your inability has caused us to have to do this.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The question now is that the suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the member for Lowe be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells being rung—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Seeing as this is a procedure that should have been done before the member for Lowe was expelled from the House at your urging, isn't there some way—seeing that you are rorting the rules already—to allow the member for Lowe to come in here again and vote on his own motion which is before the House?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Don't even you think that is terribly unjust?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No.12:20:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Beddall, D. P. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, M. J.Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.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. Cobb, M. R.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.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.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Ferguson, L. D. T. Scott, B. C.Holding, A. C. McLachlan, I. M.Thomson, K. J. Dondas, N. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills5907r5565907Debate resumed.12:45:005907Stone, Sharman, MPMrs STONEEM6MurrayLP10—At least it is good that the Labor Party was spared the embarrassment of their shadow spokesman for primary industries this time round: at least he got the bill right. You will remember last time when he rose to speak to represent Labor's interests in agriculture he spent his entire 20 minutes talking about Farm Start. The bill under question at the time was about farmer retirement assistance. It is that lack of attention to detail which has led the previous speaker, the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), to also suggest that this government is entirely responsible for a downturn in farmers' incomes. He did mention the El Nino effect—I guess he understands that the rain does not always fall—and he did mention in passing the Asian situation, but he did not seem to somehow understand that Australian farmers are export dependent and that any business, agribusiness in particular, that is totally dependent on export trade has a great deal of difficulty when it comes to domestic policies being able to do much about the swings and roundabouts in prices that they receive. Australian farmers are price takers. That is a tragedy for them.The previous speaker talked long and hard about the fact that you cannot simply offer some training courses to farmers and they will all suddenly have their cows come home and be better off. This particular bill, the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 , looks at farm business improvement programs, but it is part of a whole jigsaw puzzle of pieces which are together providing such improvements as the farm management deposit schemes to help farmers with incomes that fluctuate over time; the farm family restart scheme; the retirement assistance for farmers scheme—the one that the previous speaker had a great deal of difficulty understanding and remembering—and welfare assistance for farmers so that they get access to entitlements in a much more speedy, reasonable and fair way.This bill is extremely important for farmers. I will speak later about the National Farmers Federation research which has shown that farmers who participate in additional training and education have a substantially better prospect in terms of farm viability and additional productivity.Let me begin by saying that this particular bill is the final link in the government's comprehensive AAA package. It is about helping farmers become and remain world best producers of agricultural product. As an example of how well our farmers do, despite the extraordinarily difficult seasonal conditions they have been facing over the last decade, in the latest trade figures, released in May 1998 by the Bureau of Statistics, we saw that the exports of rural goods were up, including a 28 per cent increase in meat and meat preparation exports. What a fantastic effort by our hard-pressed primary industries. Unlike the shadow spokesman for primary industries, who can only speak gloom and doom and suggest that agribusiness is finished, our primary producers are exporting into the Asian crisis in such a way that the trade figures show they have increased their exports—a phenomenal program of work.This bill aims to provide a basis for encouraging and assisting change in the industry. It will help all people involved in farming, including farm employees, through education and training aimed at increasing their skills and, ultimately, their farm businesses' profitability and sustainability in these increasingly changing times—changes that are well beyond domestic policy; changes that in a population as small as Australia's are well beyond our ability to influence the international agribusiness marketplace. Farmbis will provide financial assistance towards the cost of programs and training for key activities such as farm business and financial planning and advice, skills development, quality assurance, risk management, farm performance benchmarking, rural leadership, marketing and natural resource management.Farmbis will replace the rural adjustment scheme. It follows the release of the McColl report titled Rural adjustment—managing change. The McColl committee concluded that the rural adjustment scheme had not reached a large proportion of farmers. The report acknowledged the importance of education and training but stated that, apart from these areas, the effectiveness of the old RAS was not really clear. The previous government might have tried, but it simply did not succeed when it came to assisting farmers to respond to a dynamic international marketplace. Farmbis takes over the education and training components of the rural adjustment scheme with an improved focus on developing and encouraging a profitable and competitive farm sector. There is just no room in this day and age for anything but the most skilled agribusiness in Australia. For example, a typical market structure in agribusiness is a large number of farmers dispersed over a wide geographic area and a large number of consumers, and they are linked by a very small number of intermediaries on whom both are dependent—that is, the farmers and the consumers. This dependence is a source of power for those intermediaries. These are often then in the position to employ monopsonistic practices in the purchase of the produce and monopolistic practices in the sale of the products to consumers. That means that our farmers are typically the price takers. They are not able to pass the costs of their inputs in their agricultural production onto consumers at the end of the chain.It was stunning to hear the shadow spokesperson for agriculture argue against tax reform, because a consumption tax or a GST relieves the primary producer of the accumulated costs of wholesale sales tax on inputs in their production process. It would allow them to get a credit for the tax paid on inputs. If they are exporting there is no GST on that product as it goes to a consumer offshore. It is quite stunning to imagine the shadow spokesperson on agriculture in this place stating that there is no need for tax reform when it comes to primary production. In fact, he was mounting quite a scare campaign.Trade in food has always operated in a different sociopolitical and economic environment compared to the environment affecting the exchange of other goods and services. For example, if you are in the business of farming you are exposed to much greater insecurity. You cannot tell what the weather will be like. You cannot tell if an overseas marketplace will suddenly reject your product on the basis of some domestic policy in, for example, Japan or Korea or the Philippines or Thailand.The largest proportion of primary food production, like crop growing or livestock management, has always been in the hands of family farmers. This is especially the case in Australia. Why? Because Australian primary production is a high risk enterprise and the returns on capital are small, often below five per cent. This tends to make farm activity much less attractive to corporate investment. It is the family farmers who have survived year after year because often they do not take salary out for all of the workers in the farm enterprise. Their spouses, partners and children may labour on those farms for long hours without being remunerated. While a corporate enterprise could not continue, farming families do it tough year after year, often with assets valued high but with incomes very low.Having described the fact that farmers are very much at the bottom end of the activity chain, with little power, our farmers in Australia are also producing product well beyond the volume that can be absorbed by the domestic market. They are export dependent. And the supply and price distortions that you find in the international market are far and above the sorts of price distortions you find in any other sale of goods and services, say in the manufacturing sector.There are a plethora of government production incentive or disincentive policies which you will find factored into the price of product in international food trade. For example, in 1974 in Australia we had virtually guaranteed markets for our beef and our butter in the United Kingdom. Both New Zealand and Australia lost those markets and our preferred nation supply status when Britain joined the European Common Market. Suddenly our primary producers had to find a whole new range of marketplaces for, in particular, their beef and their dairy product. That is why farmers need to be flexible and need to be able to change. Instead of packing up and going home, our Australian farmers looked for markets in Asia. Today, our best returning markets for primary production, especially dairy, wheat and beef production, are the nations of Japan and Korea. In 1974 we were dependent on the United Kingdom. Likewise, other countries have had similar shocks to their agribusiness marketing. Japan, for example, lost access to Taiwan and Korea's supply of low cost rice when it was defeated in World War II.There is a great deal of government intervention in international global food markets. Some other examples of influences move more slowly, for example the greening of world politics and the protection of, and induced growth in, subsidised farm exports from the European Community after World War II. Such factors mean that in Australia farmers can no longer anticipate competing against product which is always priced fairly. A lot of competing product is dumped and subsidised.Different export competing economies have responded differently to the international food trade forces. These responses depend on the political power of those who are most affected domestically, for example the farmers. So, when the European Union subsidies led to substantial slumps in food trade prices in the 1980s, the USA was in a position where it simply increased its own agricultural subsidies to its own farmers to match the low costs of the dumped products in the markets that Australia was also trying to compete in. Unfortunately Australia and New Zealand had less influential agricultural interests and a lesser ability to transfer the resources required to subsidise their disadvantaged primary producers. We could not afford to subsidise our growers, even if we had wanted to. Rather, we initiated the Cairns Group, a forum of 14 agricultural exporting nations.With the Cairns Group we argued that world agricultural trade had to be fairer. It had to be liberalised. At the Uruguay Round of the multilateral trade negotiations, the Cairns Group was able to influence the introduction of a new era aiming for reduced government intervention in the world trade for food. The Cairns Group also encouraged the non-farm groups in countries with protected agriculture sectors to voice their concerns at the high domestic costs of farm support programs. They tried to make sure, for example, that people who consumed rice in Korea and Japan understood that they were paying substantially more for that cereal when compared to a situation of open market access for Australia or Thailand.During the 1986-93 Uruguay Round many countries, like Korea, argued that subsidies, tariffs or quotas were absolutely necessary to protect their food self-sufficiency. They claimed this was critical for national security, environmental protection, equitable national income distribution and the maintenance of their very own cultural integrity. Each of these were very powerful arguments and in their countries their advocates held a great deal of sway. Meanwhile, back in Australia, a country with a small population and a small domestic market, our countries continue to be export dependent. Our farmers were unable to have much influence over those in countries like Japan, Korea and Taiwan, who did not necessarily understand that the protection of their farmers was at the cost of farmers in countries like Australia and New Zealand.Despite the work of the Cairns Group and the GATT Uruguay Round, barriers to food importation remained significantly higher than for manufactured products in most countries. Thus, a concept of free market forces in an openly competitive market applies least when it comes to international trade in agriculture. Consequently our farmers need all the help they can get to be flexible and to adapt to change—a lot of it unpredictable, like the UK joining the European Union. Our farmers have to be highly trained and well educated to understand the international forces and to make sure their properties environmentally are totally sustainable.Even though we now have, under the World Trade Organisation, a lot of lip service being paid to the need to bring down tariff barriers, at the same time our farmers are facing continued non-tariff barriers—for example, through dynamic labelling laws in different countries—ad hoc port of entry quarantine actions, distribution system impediments, non-standard phytosanitary compliance requirements or the timing of bureaucratic processes. These all continue to protect some domestic industries in our export marketplaces against competition. Australia has to continue to work hard in fora like the World Trade Organisation to bring home to other nations the total cost to their economies of continuing to subsidise their primary producers, often at the cost of their own environment and their own consumers' access to cheaper foods.Export competitiveness depends on the ability of farmers to predict, respond and change to opportunities arising from changes due to institutional factors in international markets and the evolution of food demand, changing patterns of food consumption and domestic food demand and self-sufficiency policies. The National Farmers Federation, that peak body which represents the different state farmer organisations, in November 1996 produced a research paper called `Change, training and farm profitability'. The NFF understands, unlike the previous speaker, that education and training are powerful influences on decision making on farms and, hence, are very important contributors to farm profitability and long-term viability. Learning events, including accredited training courses and informal programs such as field days and crop monitoring groups it says play an essential role in making farmers aware of new management strategies and practices.The NFF in the 1996 report also made a point that this government understands only too well: that Australia's farmers are relatively poorly educated, especially when compared with our overseas developed nation competitors, and they are poorly trained and educated compared with those in other Australian industry sectors. Not only does this limit their productivity directly, but it also has a compounding effect by inhibiting further training, which then further limits their capacity to be flexible, adaptable and responsive to change.In particular, under the conclusions, No. 1 in the NFF report stated that farm businesses which have agricultural qualifications within the management team are more profitable than other farm businesses; that farm businesses which engage in training are more profitable than other farm businesses; and that farm businesses which engage in training are more likely to make changes to their practice which improve or are expected to improve long-term profitability and viability.That is the background to this bill which will introduce Farmbis. We also acknowledge that there are education needs for regional communities which go from primary through to secondary education through to their trade skilling and tertiary education. This government has addressed the needs of rural and remote students by addressing issues such as lack of access to apprenticeships, lack of access to tertiary education and the costs incurred by having to go to cities to study. In fact, just yesterday, by changing our policies in relation to Austudy, we made sure that off-farm students having to go to cities to train will get some rent assistance through a program incorporated in what we now call `youth allowance'.This government understands how difficult it is to survive in agribusiness. It understands that, being export dependent, very often our farmers are confronted with forces well beyond their immediate control and that of our own domestic policies. Our farmers' training and their ability to adapt and take on board their industry's world's best farm practice are essential for their survival.This bill contains measures that the National Farmers Federation has been calling for. I know that it has received the strongest support from all sectors of agribusiness across this nation. I am very proud to be part of this government and to be representing a regional electorate at a time when we need to respond to the extraordinary difficulties facing our farm sector, with the Asian crisis as it is. I am proud to say that today we are putting forward legislation that is another practical response to these problems. This bill make farm training and education more possible.13:04:005911Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 is a bill that the government has decided to put forward to wind up a perfectly good scheme, the rural adjustment scheme, and replace it with another. It has done this in the context of the 1997-98 budget and as a result of the findings of the McColl report. The scheme being put in place is one which is very similar to RAS and is called farm business improvement programs, `Farmbis'. It is part of the government's AAA package, which is aimed at assisting farmers improve their management skills.Assistance will be provided by way of direct financial assistance for activities such as financial planning, performance, benchmarking, quality assurance, risk management, marketing and natural resource planning. The program funds will be divided into state and national components, with funding for the state component shared on a fifty-fifty basis between the Commonwealth and the states. The scheme will operate for three years from this 1998-99 financial year. The only thing that appears to have changed is the amount of money involved and who provides it.The opposition is not planning to oppose this bill. It is really one of our old schemes renamed and rebudgeted. But I think those who are looking to get assistance under it will need to look very closely at the small print.The review itself could have had more merit, but I think it failed to go far enough. The committee was requested to take a long-term view of future adjustment challenges and to identify private and government sector strategies to most effectively facilitate rural adjustment. Of course, this is the whole issue we are dealing with: trying to assist farming people and their families in readjusting with retraining and reskilling to be able to face the challenges of today and tomorrow—just as has occurred in so many industries throughout Australia.The committee was to explain the appropriateness of the RAS program, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the delivery system and the effectiveness of the support elements to it. Also, it was to include an examination of the need for transitional arrangements for any move to new adjustment strategies and consider the exceptional circumstances provisions and the impact of these on the rural adjustment process since the inception of the scheme.Many of these points needed updating from the old scheme because circumstances have changed since the inception of that scheme—and we know only too well the dilemma of the pork, the chicken and the wheat industries. This government has tried to deal with each of those industries—in a very bad way—but it has not been able to facilitate changes to them very well at all. It has been the same with changes in sugar selling, agroforestry development, et cetera, and the list can go on and will go on into the future.Any additional information that can be developed and incorporated into this scheme for farmers is worth while. At times I mourn the passing of the old agricultural department extension officers who, when I was a boy, turned up on the farm to give advice and assist the farmer. They worked with farmers on the ground to help introduce new ideas, provide information to help solve problems and generally to be a one-on-one adviser in the latest farming techniques. This service, which I saw as being a useful one for the government to provide, went early when the razors were out. The government, by doing away with that service, probably robbed itself of the opportunity of helping rural people cope with the changes that they have had to adapt to over the last 20 years or so. That service could have been used to help facilitate those changes.Farmers now have to pay for any advice they receive and, therefore, in these stringent times they tend to struggle on, until it is too late for advice. They tend to struggle on until the problems they are weighed down with are enormous—bank debts, no rain and, of course, no income. They then may seek some counselling and assistance, although it is at the other end the assistance is needed—that is, with up-skilling, new skills that one can take on board.Strategic plans and fancy courses are all very well. But on farms, where existing is the name of the game, very few who are eligible to take up some of these schemes can, because of other pressing commitments. The member for Murray (Mrs Stone) was very hot on this very matter. She is a very well educated person, and she can spout this. But out there you need schemes that farmers can get their teeth into—the half-day seminar, the activity of learning and taking new skills on board, understanding what is going on, the field day, the video.Last year, when I toured New Zealand with the member for Murray, we looked at the beef board in New Zealand and talked to that authority. The board had a video which it sent out to its farmers on its attitudes and what it thought was going on in the beef industry. That video was sent out, I think, twice-yearly and had something like a 90 per cent hit rate with the beef farmers of New Zealand. That sort of information is what it is about, continuing from there by getting people to acquire more skills. We can talk about fancy ideas, but I think it is more about practical ideas.For instance, yesterday in the Hobart Mercury an article appeared headed `Farming—dead loss for most'. It claimed that two-thirds of Australian farmers are running at a loss—and this is under a conservative government. The latest ABARE annual farm survey shows that the average farm profit is $2,000 a year. The average farming couple spend 69 hours a week working and juggling farm duties and a non-rural job, child care or volunteer work.The annual snapshot of Australian farming shows that poor seasonal conditions, very low world prices and reduced demand from Asian markets helped to erode profitability in the rural sector. When you look at those figures, it certainly has been eroded. The survey also showed that cash receipts for farms in 1997-98 dipped by about five per cent and profits slumped by almost six per cent, with 64 in every 100 farms making a loss. So 64 out of every 100 farms made a loss last year. It is hardly a picture to encourage new people into farming or to get money into farms, or to get people back on the land or to revitalise our small towns. In fact, quite the reverse.The member for Murray attacked our shadow minister, saying that he was too gloomy. These figures are reality and truth, and you have to face up to the reality. Reality is about government putting things in place perhaps in policy terms to assist changing that around.Yet the very scheme we have here to which it is suggested that farmers turn when experiencing changes in their particular part of the industry is asking for a financial contribution towards the cost of the training program. In so doing, the government is going against everything that is being said of the farm sector. That leaves one option for most, that is, to leave the farm, to get off. In Tasmania, that is what is happening. Small farms are going to the wall every day of the week.The primary industry sector is one of the rural area's key fields which is ripe for development. Government has tended to ignore the role it can play in helping industry move into a viable primary produce role. The outlook for agriculture in the next century is for continuing change, which comes from increasing globalisation and greater integration in the marketing chain, with pressure to increase quality control and manage natural resources sustainably.Those pressures will be there; no matter what is said and done, they will continue to be the main pressures impacting on the farm sector. They will bring both opportunities and challenges to the farm sector, and they will place new demands on the management capacities of Australian farmers—particularly their ability to handle risk better than they deal with now.Government needs to help in a whole range of areas, particularly in infrastructure, which includes such things as transport, water assistance through irrigation schemes, drought proofing schemes and things like that. People in rural areas have been given a raw deal by this government. There has been a massive reaction, as witnessed by the Queensland situation. I think the government has listened to what has been said; I hope it has. I think the government needs to take action to rein in some of the gung-ho approaches to world trade—for example, with our leading in cutting away at our own protection but others not seeming to want to give us the same opportunities.The member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), the Opposition shadow minister, pointed out some of the frustration felt by people in the bush who are members of the same party as some of those on the government side.We have to recognise that we cannot be the leader in the matter of the liberalisation of trade. Opening up the market is fine, but not at the expense of our workers and our jobs, particularly when other developed countries are not prepared to drop their barriers to our products. But by the same token, our rural industries need to get together and look at how they can become more competitive both in the local market and in the international field.I believe there is a need to do some hard thinking and some precise restructuring to deal with some of the problems that are facing our farmers. It is those who are best equipped to make the changes who are the ones that really should be developing the policy, and I do not think that happens very much at all.Any rural assistance type programs should be drawn together to allow some of the smaller farmers a small window of opportunity to take part in that restructuring to assist them and the family farm, whether it be by developing farm machinery circles, by employment circles, by developing producer cooperatives with people working together in networking schemes, or by looking at the latest in agricultural schemes such as the fodder factory. If anyone has not heard of that, it is worthwhile knowing about, particularly for drought affected areas and many other areas as well. It is a very worthwhile scheme.The use of the Internet is becoming popular, especially with bigger farmers with Internet access, but it is almost inaccessible to many of those on small holdings. Many people in my electorate would not have access to the Internet even though there has been some community access provided. Hopefully, we can extend that access in the future.Access needs to be assured to cover such issues as the sale of Telstra and the effect that that will have on rural and regional areas. When you talk about supplying information assistance, training and skills development, the Internet and other ways of communicating directly with people in their own homes becomes vital. The sale of Telstra is certainly a major issue for people in rural and regional Australia, as is the effect that the privatisation of the Hydro Electric Commission could have in my own state of Tasmania.While I am sure that this bill is supposed to be only a simple adjustment to an already existing scheme, these sorts of bills roll through without too many people really knowing what the implications are. By chan ging a word just subtly it can make a lot of difference to what somebody ends up getting in assistance.Tasmania needs help in most areas of its economy, and I see the rural and regional area as one of the key sectors in the future in developing our production. Certainly, our vegetables and poppy industries can expand. It is about having farmers with the skills in this generation and the next to be able to take advantage of those opportunities. The sooner we get on with that and help our constituents the better off we will be.The figures that the shadow minister raised in relation to the GST were very interesting. He has done some work in relation to farm income and worked out that with a GST, farmers would be $32 per week worse off. The figure was something like $1,500 a year. When members opposite say how the GST will be good for farmers, farmers and the farming community of this country should have a damn good look at how it will affect them. I do not think a GST will help very much. We will be supporting the bill.13:21:005914Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—I wish to speak in this debate on the Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 . Farmers in the central Queensland region of Capricornia are still doing it very, very tough. The drought is now rolling towards its eighth year of devastation and commodity prices are continuing to fall to meagre levels. On top of this, the Asian economic crisis is about to make a big impact on our farming sector.Although the coalition government has made a number of changes to assist the rural industry adjust to a changing world economic climate, a lot of these changes have not had the desired effect of improving farm profitability. The farm management deposit scheme, an adequate welfare safety net and the farm family restart scheme will help farmers reorganise themselves to be able to fight their way through the system that is really affecting them, in particular, this bad drought. And Farmbis, which we are talking about here today, will provide farmers with skills and advice on how they can best manage their property. This is another great initiative that we are putting forward.I must say that the National Party has always been, and always will be, very representative of regional and rural Australia, particularly the people out there in country Queensland.Opposition members interjecting—LK6Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREK—The interjections from the other side of the House just go to show the opposition's ineptness in relation to this issue. They are obviously too close to the city dwellers; they do not understand what is going on; and we saw that in the Queensland election, when Labor was significantly rolled by One Nation.Further, this new system is enough to rectify some of the serious problems facing the people that provide all our food and 25 per cent of the nation's exports. According to the latest farm survey of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, farm profits have dropped by a massive 80 per cent over the last two years, with almost two-thirds of farmers still making business losses.The statistics show that the average farming family works about 69 hours a week for an average profit of $2,000 a year. Those figures are absolutely staggering: 69 hours a week for an average profit of $2,000 a year. We have to work to ensure we can keep those people out there on the land not only maintaining a profitable business but also looking after the city dwellers. This is just one-fifth of the profit they earned in 1995-96.If you take out the big end of the market, you will find that most small farmers, such as those earning less than $100,000 a year, are recording substantial losses as well, especially on the dairy, beef, mixed livestock and cropping farms, where they are making losses of $20,000 to $30,000 per farm and negative returns of 3.5 to four per cent. According to the survey, farmers are racking up debt averaging $136,400. This again begs the question: are we doing enough to help these people adjust to the trials and tribulations of farming in today's environment?As far as the bill is concerned, there are four key objectives of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. These four objectives are: to help the individual farm business profit from change; to ensure the farm sector has access to an adequate welfare safety net system; and to provide positive incentives for continual farm adjustment. The fourth, of course, is to encourage social and economic development in rural areas.As well as this, it is known that Australian agriculture accounts for about 25 per cent of the nation's exports. I must say that for employment factors, for the development of jobs in Australia, we must work to value add our products, particularly within the beef industry, something that is very, very important. That, of course, in some ways works against live exports to other countries but value adding does provide jobs for Australians and value adding is something that needs to be looked at and, of course, worked on a lot more.Further, Farmbis will give farmers an opportunity to identify, access and participate in the skills development activities most relevant to enhancing the performance of their business. Farmbis will achieve its objectives through a range of strategies. These strategies are very, very important and it is very pertinent that we put them on the record in this debate.Firstly, they will increase farmer participation in learning activities, which will enhance the profitability, sustainability and competitiveness of their businesses. Secondly, they will develop greater acceptance of the benefits of continuous learning and skills development and their relevance to the changing management needs of the competitive farm sector. Finally, they will enhance farmers' capacity to identify and access appropriate learning activities and over time influence more flexible delivery of such activities.Farmbis will give farmers an opportunity to identify, access and participate in these skills, as I have said, and the development of the skills most relevant to enhancing performance in their business is absolutely imperative to their survival. Very importantly, they will build on the excellent training that is being delivered round the nation by the property management planning campaign, which is a joint Commonwealth-state initiative that introduced farmers to strategic business planning at the whole farm level and is delivered through farmers workshops.Further, Farmbis will achieve its objectives through other strategies that are important, such as assisting farmers to participate in learning activities, to coordinate flexible, responsible delivery, and to communicate with, contribute to and work with other farmers close to them. Often you hear of the scenario of one person on his property who has learnt to do one thing a particular way and whose sons may have left the property to do an apprenticeship in boilermaking, electronics, fitting and turning, or diesel fitting and then come back to the property. That property has changed the way it has done things and then some weeks, months or even years down the track they will be talking to the farmer next door and he will be talking about how he is doing things and they will say, `Gee, listen, we stopped doing that a couple of years ago. This is a significant benefit. This is how we are doing it.' So what you have got is the farmers interacting with each other, and this gives another significant benefit. That is why it is important that people from property to property have the ability to communicate with each other and, of course, to develop the way they do things.There are another couple of points I would like to make as time draws on, particularly in relation to the national competition policy. As far as country Queensland is concerned, particularly from my point of view as a National Party member for Capricornia in central Queensland, there have been some words said in the past weeks, particularly within the media, of course, in relation to Australia Post and the national competition policy.It is important for people to know where I stand: I do not support the breaking down or the further deregulation of Australia Post. It is the lifeline to many of the people out there in the country, and it is imperative that it maintains its hold and is there for the people out there in country Queensland.We have seen the withdrawal of the banks and those sorts of financial institutions over years past, and that has led to the breaking down of small towns in country Queensland—and, of course, across Australia. More often than not, the post offices are the final link that a lot of small communities have, and it is absolutely imperative that they are maintained and that they have a presence. That presence is obviously in the form of an establishment in the town, not just somebody dropping in on a weekly or daily basis. Once again, there is no backing down on that. The issue is not negotiable. Australia Post remains.Further, as far as the national competition policy is concerned, I believe that the Competition Policy Reform Act 1995 should be amended somewhat so that newsagencies, pharmacies, taxis, and the dairy and sugar industries have a greater ability to maintain themselves rather than be attacked by the national competition policy; that as well inland and regional local government bodies should be excluded from the ambit of the act; and that the government should be given the power to designate, at their discretion, any other industry or parts of industries or government services to be similarly excluded from the ambit of the act.I feel very passionate as far as national competition policy is concerned. I was a councillor in local government in the Belyando Shire, and we often saw situations where it was basically destroying small towns like Clermont in central Queensland. The council would need a new vehicle, and under the competition policy they would have to buy a vehicle from Mackay, some hundreds of kilometres away, rather than being able to buy the vehicle from the local Ford dealership. There may have been a difference of only several hundred dollars, or even $300 to $500, between buying the vehicle in the town of Clermont or buying it in the city of Mackay several hundred kilometres away.This only destroys those small communities. The local councils should have the ability to spend that money in their local communities. This is an area where national competition policy is not helping local government or country Queensland and, as I said, I intend to take this issue further in the parliament as the weeks draw on.Drought relief is another issue that has been in place for some time. I remember campaigning very strongly around the March 1996 election that, if the Liberal-National coalition were in government, it would ensure relief for the people in country Queensland, particularly because the drought was taking so long not so much to wear off but to wear on. We need to go down the track to keep the people on the land. We have just started to have significant rainfalls in country Queensland, and it will be some years before these people start to make it back and become self-sustainable.It is important that government, in particular, act for the people, and I am a great believer in government governing for today, not just for tomorrow. I think that is where we have seen government in past years, and even now, falling down. We are too busy governing for tomorrow, the future, rather than governing for today. It is the bread and butter issues that really affect people. The everyday man on the street needs to know that he is going to have that income at the end of the week to be able to pay his mortgage, et cetera.That is where national competition policy and drought relief stand. There are a couple of major issues, but as far as the changes in the bill are concern I commend them. They will go a long way to helping people in country Queensland.13:35:005916O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Rural Adjustment Amendment Bill 1998 gives effect to the government's decision to wind up the rural adjustment scheme and to replace it with the farm business improvement program. I cannot go too much longer in this debate without challenging some of the views that have been put here today in this debate by the member for Capricornia (Mr Marek). As Labor spokesperson on Northern Australia, I have an understanding of the great hurt and the anger being felt in the bush by the betrayal of their interests by people like the member for Capricornia.The National Party has comprehensively betrayed rural and regional Australia, and you can always tell when the National Party is under attack, because they come in here to deliver their speeches beating their breasts and saying that they are sorry for the hurt and damage that they have done to people in rural and regional Australia. You can always tell when the National Party members are running scared, because they come in to deliver these platitudes to people in rural and regional Queensland and elsewhere in Australia.I note the presence in the chamber today of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who, in the debate on industry policy, suggested that all that opposition members did was to read from their speeches. I do not need to read my speech on the floor of this parliament today, because you do not need notes to speak about the performance of the National Party.The reason why the National Party members are in here apologising to people in rural and regional Australia is that they got creamed in Queensland. They comprehensively betrayed rural and regional dwellers, and now they are in here on the floor of this parliament beating their breasts and hoping that the One Nation steamroller will not go right over them. I do not think anybody in rural and regional Queensland is listening.The honourable member for Capricornia has a really big problem, because he gets up and tells the parliament how he is all for value adding: `Yes siree; let's get that value adding out into rural and regional communities and create jobs and preserve the fabric there.' I suggest he talks to his leader. That is the first place to start. Don't come in here telling the opposition how you are going to create jobs in rural and regional Queensland; don't put it out over the airwaves how you are going to do it; go to your leader and tell him your views, because this is what the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson), your National Party minister, had to say in the Weekend Australian of 11-12 January 1997:Australia should focus more on improving its exports of raw materials rather than developing processing industries.Further on he said:It is likely that improving the quality of our raw materials will become much more important than value adding. The member for Capricornia should not come in here telling us how he is all for value adding. Go to the leader of your party and convince him that this is the correct strategy. You will obviously get support from us because, once again, you are stealing the policies that Labor have put up so that rural and regional Queensland and rural and regional Australia can develop employment opportunities and get those communities moving again.I say this to the honourable member for Capricornia and to those people in rural and regional Queensland who are listening to this debate today: it was not the Labor Party that withdrew the $150 million for regional development; it was the Liberal-National Party coalition. It was not the Labor Party which withdrew hundreds of millions of dollars that went into rural and regional Australia in the form of assistance for labour market programs to skill people in the bush so that they might take advantage of employment opportunities; it was the Liberal and National parties.The great exporting cooperatives of Australia—the people who create the value adding opportunities in provincial Australia, the great companies that export value added produce off the back of the raw materials of our primary industries—suffered because a Liberal-National Party government denied them access to export development schemes that would enable them to get into export markets, to sell more value added produce and to create more jobs in rural and regional Australia.It was not Labor that withdrew the basic services that form the fabric of rural and regional communities; it has been the Liberal Party and the National Party, of which the member for Capricornia is a proud member. I would say that, if we get a couple more public opinion polls, it will be the member for Capricornia, along with the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and another National Party member from Queensland, who will jump ship to One Nation. They could not even stand and draw the line in the sand, and now they want to jump ship to go to the other side because people in the bush are sick of them. Let me tell you something about people in the bush: once you make a promise to them, they expect you to keep it. I went through some of the commitments that we gave, and delivered, to the bush, and they were the things that were taken away by a Liberal-National Party government. That is why the anger in the bush is so deep.It is no good for the member for Capricornia to come in here and say that he wants to support the retention of Australia Post, when he is part of a government that wants to sell off Telstra to foreigners. That is the position: he wants to keep Australia Post in public ownership and then he wants to sell the rest of Telstra in the private marketplace and damage the interests of rural and regional Australians. What is worse, his Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has allocated 35 per cent of this great Australian asset to foreigners. There will be no sale of Telstra to foreign interests and no further sale of Telstra to private interests when the Labor Party is in power—simple fact—and it will not be the case with Australia Post.Mr Marek interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Here they go! The member for Capricornia is going on about the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas.LK6MAREKMr Marek—What happened to Qantas?WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I think the honourable member for Capricornia ought to tell us how many of his constituents flew on Qantas and on Australian Airlines before they were privatised.LK6MAREKMr Marek—You sold it.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Don't come that nonsense with me. What is the great king hit by the National Party on rural and regional Australians? It is the GST. The member for Capricornia gets up here and says, `Farm profits are down by 80 per cent.' The latest farm survey by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics has found that farm profits have been slashed by 80 per cent under the Howard government. What is the response by this spokesperson for the National Party and by the National Party itself? `We are going to privatise Telstra. We are going to impose a GST on farmers and on farm families.'I think it is about time that the National Party had a strong, hard look at itself, because members of its coalition cabinet were sacked for rorting. That is a fact, and people in rural and regional Australia know it is a fact that some of the big rorters in the coalition were from the National Party. While farmers were struggling out on their farms to make ends meet, National Party ministers were in this parliament rorting their travel allowances. Those are the facts of the matter.The reason why the bush is so angry is that the government they placed their trust in has comprehensively betrayed them. They have a Prime Minister who cannot uphold ministerial standards, and they have a government that has had seven resignations in 27 months—that is one resignation every four months. If that is not a sign of a government in decay, I really do not know what is. They could not even go through a footy season without a resignation from the coalition ranks. That is the government that we have here today, and that is the government that is introducing this particular piece of legislation to improve the management skills of farmers.Let me say to the rural communities of Australia, and especially to farmers in the northern parts of Australia: we will support this piece of legislation because we believe it is an important step to take to improve the management skills of the Australian farm sector. The Karpin report, delivered at the time when the Labor Party was in government, identified the Achilles heel of the Australian economy: it was not the inability of the workers to work hard; it was not the fact that we were not investing in capital equipment; it was in the human resource called management. Management was ripping off the profits of Australian companies with large salaries while farmers were earning negative incomes, and our Achilles heel, as far as getting the economy going, was the poor management practices of the Australian business sector.We welcome this particular program because it is going to put resources at the disposal of farmers to improve their manage ment skills. But I have to say this in all honesty to the farmers who are listening to this debate today—the farmers in their tractors now who are tilling the ground, who are coping with climate change and who are coping with the effects of the Asian economics firestorm: you are going to need every cent of this money. You are going to need to improve your management practices to keep you in the race, to overcome the shock waves that are now moving across Australian agriculture, and the Australian Labor Party will stand with you in sponsoring these particular programs.The government has made it quite clear that the aim of this program is to improve the management skills of farmers, to lift their productivity and to lift their profitability. The activities that can be selected by farmers to improve their skills go to the general areas of farm management, quality issues, marketing issues and financial planning issues. In all of those areas there may be farmers who wish to upgrade their skills, who see an advantage in acquiring new skills and in positioning their farms in the marketplace so that they are better able to withstand the shocks that are upon the rural sector today. A pleasing aspect of this legislation is the partnership that is being called for between community groups, farm organisations and the states. This will be a program that will be funded conjointly.The process of structural change in agriculture has been extremely dynamic over the past decades. We have seen a reduction in farm households; we have seen an increase in farm sizes. The process of structural adjustment has been fuelled by increasing cost pressures, a desire to achieve economies of scale on amalgamated farms, the introduction of new technologies and the expansion of markets. Agriculture has become more efficient and productive, and it needs to be supported by the sorts of measures that we are debating here today.I know a bit about the pain of structural adjustment because I come from a dairy farm in the Western District, a sector which underwent significant structural adjustment in the 1980s to prepare it for the 1990s.Mr McArthur interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—I notice the presence in the House today—he always comes in—of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) who is saying a few words from the back benches there. Of course, he was one of the ones who went around rural Australia in the 1980s being very critical of the actions that were being taken by the Labor government of the day. But I will give the honourable member for Corangamite some credit: whilst he did couch in general terms his criticisms of the government of the day, he was supportive and he did indicate to farmers that they had to undergo this process of structural adjustment to prepare themselves for the challenges of the 1990s. We went through that period. My community suffered greatly from that restructuring process. But we knew at the time that, if it did not occur, then the dairy industry in Australia would be run over by the New Zealanders and the competition that would come from the Europeans. If you go into the rural sector now, you will see that the dairy industry is one of the industries that has done better than others.There are significant pressures facing our farmers in today's economic climate, beyond their control. Farmers cannot anticipate the effects of El Nino, but they can certainly prepare for them, and that is part of the upgrading of management skills which is the object of this particular legislation. They cannot really insulate themselves from the adverse effects of the Asian economic meltdown. These are conditions that have existed in economies elsewhere that are going to impact greatly on Australian farmers.The rural sector, unfortunately, has to put up with the Treasurer (Mr Costello), a suburban lawyer who knows nought about agriculture in Australia and the way he prepares the nation for the effects of these sorts of things. The Treasurer had some very interesting things to say about the El Nino threat. He said that there was no need to get too pessimistic about the El Nino effect. I suggest that the member for Capricornia go up to his farmers and tell them that his Treasurer said that they do not really have to worry too much about the effects of El Nino. What did the Treasurer say to the Australian people and the Australian farm sector when the Asian economic crisis broke? The Treasurer said, `You don't really have much to worry about.' You know how the Treasurer comes into this House arrogant and grinning and smiling to the press gallery, `How am I doing today?' It was sheer arrogance of the Treasurer to tell Australian farmers that there was no need to get too pessimistic about the El Nino effect, that they should not worry about the Asian economic meltdown and that they should not worry about the fact that commodity prices would slump through the floor and that their profits would be down about 80 per cent. `She'll be right,' he said. Well, it will not be right.The Australian farm community expect more from their Treasurer and they expect more from this government. They have been comprehensively betrayed by the National Party. They come into this House now in all these rural debates. They are like rabbits in the One Nation spotlight, quivering away there, not knowing which way to jump—left or right, forwards or backwards—because they are not sure whether the Hanson bandwagon is going to roll over them.There is one certainty that rural people in this community can count on, and that is the integrity of Labor and the fact that Labor will defend their interests in the bush. When you see the comprehensive betrayal of rural people by the National Party, and the backlash in Queensland, then you can understand why they are upset.Let me put this on the public record: if we had done to the Liberal Party what they did to us in Queensland, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) would now have 21 representatives in the Queensland parliament. There would be no Liberal Party and there would not be anything much left of the National Party. You chose that course of action so you have got to live with it. But I say to the people of rural and provincial Australia: we will restore the regional development program; we will give you the back the labour market programs that were taken from your communities that helped skill your people and position them to take jobs; and we will restore those services that have been ripped out of the heart of country Australia by the National Party. (Time expired)13:55:005920McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNP10—Honourable members would be aware that my electorate of Gippsland has been devastated by the worst floods in history over the last few days. In fact, the rain started falling on Tuesday, 23 June with disastrous consequences, as in some districts in East Gippsland rainfall of 17½ inches was recorded over a less than 20-hour period.Gippsland also suffered enormously from floods in 1990 and it has to be said that, to the credit of all involved, because of the lessons learnt from that disaster, many of the mistakes in emergency response were not repeated this time around. In fact, it is true to say that the disaster plan worked extremely well, and you would be hard pressed to find any fault with it. Much of this is due to the leadership provided by the various heads of government agencies, the East Gippsland Shire and also the volunteer organisations. So much so that Senior Sergeant Shane Downey actually called together all of the emergency response organisations early on the afternoon of Tuesday, 23 June before flood warnings were made apparent. Some instinct on his part, which he modestly explains away, prompted him to have a drill anyway, and if a flood did not eventuate, nothing would be lost. In fact, some knowledge of bringing together everybody in a mock emergency situation would be of benefit. That meant that everything was in place when, later in the evening of Tuesday, 23 June, floods were all too apparent.I should therefore extend, on behalf of the Gippsland community, and indeed all Australians, our thanks to the emergency response organisations: the shire itself, the police, the State Emergency Service, the Country Fire Authority, VicRoads, Eastern Energy, Telstra, the Red Cross, the Victorian Farmers Federation, church groups and individual volunteers. When I visited headquarters—or the command centre—it was a remarkable sight of extraordinary activity. All of the representatives of those named organisations were brought together in one room around a circular table, each with communications—phones. That meant that, unlike 1990 when people were confused, unsure of where to go and what was happening to relatives, they could phone in direct to one central point and receive assurance, assistance and guidance.Tragically, it seems, as of this moment, that the missing yachtsman on the Gippsland Lakes has been lost to us. However, we expect, perhaps in the next few hours even, to confirm that. That would be the sole and tragic loss of life. The loss of property has been tragic, particularly for a region coming off drought. There had been seven inches of rainfall across East Gippsland a fortnight before the floods, which meant there were the beginnings of some grass growth. But, in actual fact, most of the paddocks, particularly in the Tambo Valley, were utterly unprotected and the loss of topsoil was horrendous and most upsetting to see. In fact, we believe that, even before the flood, we had lost some two inches in wind erosion on those unprotected paddocks.It is not just the farmers who have suffered enormous loss; we are still counting it up. We expect there to be more than 8,000 sheep lost, 1,500 cattle, more than 130 kilometres of lost or damaged fences and far more than 40 properties with silt damage. But the toll-free phone line, which continues to operate, is available to farmers to report losses.The tourist industry also suffered heavily, particularly in Lakes Entrance, Paynesville and Metung, and of course a great deal of effort has been made since to encourage people to continue to visit East Gippsland. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) has visited the area with me as recently as yesterday and saw for himself the toll that has been taken, in physical and emotional terms, on the region. I will, Mr Speaker, return to this subject at a later time today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice592159215921Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you agreed, as claimed by the Western Australian Premier, Richard Court, today, that the Commonwealth will pick up 75 per cent of the compensation costs for all future acts by the states and territories extinguishing or impacting on native title? Doesn't this hand to the states, effectively, a blank cheque to proceed with the complete extinguishment of native title on both vacant crown land and pastoral leases? Have you received from Treasury or Finance an estimate—and, if so, what?—of the potential liability of the Commonwealth and its taxpayers in this respect? Prime Minister, having bought your way out of an embarrassing and unnecessary early election, is the price setting up the Commonwealth and Australian taxpayers for billions of dollars of open-ended liability?5921Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware that the Australian Labor Party is unhappy that a deal has been reached on the native title legislation. I am aware also that it is the Australian Labor Party that has wanted to fan division on this issue within the Australian community. I have also been wanting to know—as have many Australians—whether the Leader of the Opposition will give an undertaking to the Australian community that, if the Senate passes the amended bill in accordance with the arrangement reached between the government and Senator Harradine, the Australian Labor Party will give an undertaking that, if it is ever elected to office, it would not seek to repeal that bill. I think the farmers of Australia will want to know whether Kim Beazley is in favour of the settlement or is against it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker!Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House will remain silent. The members on the government benches!PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question sought to establish whether Richard Court was right when he said the Commonwealth would pick up 75 per cent of the costs of future acts.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will not argue the question. That is not a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think the Australian public will want to know where the Labor Party stands on certainty for Australian farmers. Does the Australian Labor Party support a settlement that gives security and predictibility to the rural community of Australia or does the Australian Labor Party want to continue the five years of uncertainty that it created commencing with the 1993 Native Title Act? It ought to be said very firmly that the source of this problem lies in the Keating Native Title Act.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. There was a specific question asked about the compensation arrangements. It dealt with nothing else. Not remotely, in anything the Prime Minister has said, has he got to grips with that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition would know that, if he asks a long question and does not ask a precise question, there is the same opportunity that he exercised as a minister for the Prime Minister and other ministers to reply—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What about the other side?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Brisbane will remain silent while I am talking—there is the same opportunity for ministers of the present government to respond as did ministers in the preceding government. The Prime Minister is in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I know that every farmer and every person interested in the mining industry in Australia knows that the uncertainty, the doubt and the hesitation in relation to native title are a direct consequence of the Keating Native Title Bill. At long last an arrangement has been reached that will resolve that uncertainty.On the question of compensation, an arrangement was reached in relation to compensation provision of 75 and 25. I have indicated already that there will be further discussion on that issue. The assertion made by the Leader of the Opposition is again wrong. There has been no buying off. The doubt and concern that he raises about billions of dollars are, once again, a fanciful exaggeration.59225922Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of recent developments concerning the government's Native Title Amendment Bill? What will these developments mean for farmers, the mineral industry and Aboriginal people? Prime Minister, what assistance did the government receive from the Labor Party at state or federal level for you to resolve this serious issue of land management?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, I would point out that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the Labor Party, however.5922Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As the House is aware, an arrangment—sorry, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I was just commenting that the last part of the question with respect to the Labor Party does not suggest that you are in any way responsible for the Labor Party.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, Mr Speaker.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—No, I asked whether he had got any help from the Labor Party.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not think the member for O'Connor would ever suggest that I was responsible for the Labor Party.As the House will be aware, an agreement was made yesterday between the government and Senator Brian Harradine to give effect to certain amendments to the Native Title Act. If that new amended bill passes through the parliament it will, after a delay of almost five years, bring an end to an enormous amount of doubt that has hung over land title management in this country as a result of the incompetently drawn Native Title Act of 1993; a piece of legislation that was drawn in blatant disregard of the interests of the states of Australia, particularly states such as Western Australia where 82 per cent of the land mass of the state is now under native title claim.May I say that a comment made by the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court, this morning to the effect that you are dealing here with an issue where the legislation is made at a federal level but it is the responsibility of the states to administer land management issues is a point entirely lost by the former Labor government, because the Native Title Act we now grapple with was, in fact, drawn in blatant disregard of the interests of states such as Western Australia. I have got to say that the Leader of the Opposition, who comes from Western Australia, has sold out the interests of his home state on this issue from start to finish. The Leader of the Opposition has paid no regard to the interests of the people of Western Australia or the great resource industry of Western Australia.By reaching this agreement the government has brought the uncertainty, the delay and the obscurity to an end. The government has provided certainty to Australia's farmers and, most importantly, it has provided a regime that treats all Australians equally. The main reason we were not prepared to accept the amendments inserted by the Senate was that those amendments gave rights to one section of the Australian community that were not available to others. It is a cardinal principle of this government's approach to the affairs of this country that we treat all Australians equally. We do not give one set of rights to one group and say to another group, `You can get by with inferior rights.' The reason why we oppose the right to negotiate was that that right to negotiate created rights for one section of the Australian community that were not available to others.It stands as a matter of the public record that the Labor Party is in favour of the inequality of rights of the Australian people; that the Labor Party wants a native title act that says that there should be rights available to the indigenous community that are not available to other sections of the Australian community. That position was repeated this morning by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and it has been repeated by the Leader of the Opposition.I note that the settlement reached with Senator Harradine has been widely supported within the Australian community. It has been supported by the National Farmers Federation, it has been supported by the Minerals Council of Australia and it has been supported by state governments. I believe it is a fair and balanced settlement. When the act is implemented by this parliament it will bring to an end almost five years of obscurity, delay and hesitation. It will bring to an end almost five years of legal uncertainty. It will bring to an end a failed attempt to create an inequality of rights within the Australian community.It is an honourable settlement. It is a fair settlement. It treats all Australians equally. If the Labor Party had the interests of the Australian community at heart, they would give their full support to the agreement that I have reached with Senator Harradine.59235923Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Isn't there a world of difference between a government which rejects options prepared by officials in response to a dispute, as Labor did in 1994, and one which actively provokes a dispute in order to engineer the sacking of an entire work force, endorses separation of that work force from the company infrastructure in order to make it easier to sack them, and helps train an alternative work force to take over from the sacked workers? Isn't it the case that, unlike Labor in 1994, you were up to your neck in a deliberate interventionist strategy to deprive Australian citizens of their right to work?5923Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The member who asked the question was not a member of the Labor subcommittee in 1994, but let me say that, during the whole period Labor was in office, they had the choice to advocate significant reform on the waterfront and on every occasion they failed to exercise the national leadership that was necessary. We make no apology for the fact that this government has advocated significant reform of the Australian waterfront and through 1996 and 1997 was prepared to sit down, not just with employers but with unions, and demand some significant reform. Instead of you carping on about it, the fact is that you ought to have been publicly advocating the very reforms that we ourselves have implemented. What a refreshing change it has been to have a government that is prepared to take some national leadership.59245924Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General—and my congratulations to the Prime Minister on the outcome of the Wik negotiations.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will finish his question.XU5Mr LIEBERMAN—Can the Attorney-General inform the House how the government's plan for resolving native title will address concerns of uncertainty and unfairness?5924Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Indi for his question. The government's objective with native title has been to bring certainty, fairness and workability into Australia's land management system. The land management system under Labor's legislation following the High Court's Wik decision has led to great uncertainty. Under Labor's legislation, the Commonwealth has spent more than $200 million on native title, but there have been virtually no determinations made. People have been in the courts for nearly five years without making any real progress.The agreement achieved by the Prime Minister will bring certainty and it will bring fairness to the law. The government has had significant legal advice throughout the negotiating process which confirms that our approach is constitutionally valid. A clear example of how certainty will be achieved is in relation to the interaction of the Native Title Act and the RDA. The changes made to the Native Title Amendment Bill by Labor and the minor parties in the Senate earlier this year, which were expressly rejected back in 1993 by Labor, would have in effect promoted litigation by parties to use the RDA to challenge in court virtually any action taken under the Native Title Act. This would not have promoted certainty; it would have, in fact, promoted great uncertainty.The agreement reached will confirm the High Court's interpretation of the current position as to the interaction between the two acts. It will not allow the courts to go further than the High Court's current position and it will ensure that actions which comply with the Native Title Act and are valid are not subject to separate challenge under the RDA.Labor's unproductive response to the agreement reached by the Prime Minister has been to create alarm. The Leader of the Opposition in his own words has claimed that it will cause endless litigation.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—He is right—one day, one challenge.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—That is wrong. What everybody wants in a legal system is certainty. That is what is wanted by miners, by farmers, by native title claimants and by tourist operators, and that what they will get under the government's proposals. The government's proposals will lead to certainty and they will lead to fairness.Distinguished Visitors592410000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would like to advise members of the House that we have present the Prime Minister of the Republic of Estonia, His Excellency Mr Mart Siimann, together with his party. On behalf of all Australians and certainly members of this parliament, we extend a very warm welcome to Australia and to the Australian parliament and we wish you and your country well.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice592459245924Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you seen this document prepared in your office, headed Waterfront Strategy, for distribution to you, John Sharp, Peter Reith, Greg Bondar and Peter Wilson? Prime Minister, doesn't this document recommend an interventionist approach as the only strategy for your government and define it as requiring `active involvement by the Commonwealth and the stevedoring industry to bring about a national MUA stoppage allowing the stevedores to sack their existing work force and restart their operations with a new non-union work force'? Prime Minister, isn't this the document you endorsed on 21 April 1997 and which you told Ministers Reith and Sharp the same day that they should proceed to implement?5925Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is very interesting that there has been one question on native title—very instructive. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to table the document and I would be very happy to have a look at it.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Don't you know what was in it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Brisbane will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As to the substance of the issue, of course the government wanted waterfront reform; of course, we were going to be active; of course, we were going to work hard to achieve waterfront reform—because that is what we campaigned on.Mr Bevis interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am very proud of the fact that the government I lead wanted to deliver a reformed Australian waterfront and it remains to the eternal discredit of the Australian Labor Party that it opposed those efforts.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to table the statement?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Go on; table it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I table it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The document has been tabled.59255925Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. I would certainly like to take the opportunity of thanking the Deputy Prime Minister for the positive role he played in the Wik debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will address his question; there other vehicles. I will call another member if he does not proceed with his question.7K6Mr ENTSCH—Can the minister detail what impact resolving Australia's native and land title uncertainties will have on export industries?5925Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. I would like to advise him, the member for Capricornia and others that I will go to Longreach at 6 p.m. on Saturday for the purpose of having interface and dialogue with the good people of Longreach and surrounds and say that the principles and the integrity of the 10-point plan have been delivered, thanks to the good work of the Prime Minister, Minister Nick Minchin and others. The House will be aware that Australia's export industries do rely—DT4CREANMr Crean—Will Brian be there with you?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—It has been a long time since any Labor leader has been anywhere near Longreach.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will respond to the question.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The House will be aware that Australia's export industries do rely on a land title system that stacks up, and that relates to the pastoral industry and the mining industry. One of the key aspects arising from the deal and the outcome on Wik is the tougher threshold test which will apply across the leases, bringing to an end the business of vexatious, disconnected claims, something which Noel Pearson himself has urged at various stages during this debate. So you will no longer have the business of someone near Redfern claiming some area west of Rockhampton; and that has been long overdue as part of getting some sanity into the whole native title equation.We have a tougher threshold test which stacks up. We have a set of circumstances of equality of rights and farmers can get on without being ambushed by rights to negotiate on their farm activity in relation to leaseholds. We have a proper outcome with regard to the Racial Discrimination Act and we have an outcome that will help provide certainty, to quote the National Farmers Federation. This will help the export base of Cape York, the hinterland and the ports of Cairns, Townsville and Rockhampton in establishing the exactitude of the land title system. It will help confirm the exclusive tenure circumstance of GHPL leasehold throughout a good part of Queensland and that extinguishment is confirmed in relation to those leases.Finally, in respect of a claim by the Yorta Yorta people and other people who are claim ing waters of the Murray River and elsewhere in the Darling-Murray Basin, it will provide a simple, straightforward process so that, whatever the determination might be on that key Yorta Yorta claim, irrigators will be able to get on with their task and circumstance, and the authorities will be empowered to do that. It is a good outcome. What a refreshing change it is to have a government which has delivered in relation to this matter.59265926Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling Neil Mitchell on 13 February this year:We don't seek a huge national barney—with the MUA—over this. We never have.and that you told the parliament on 8 April:The MUA have created their own predicament. That has not been generated by anyone else.Prime Minister, doesn't this document that you have now got state:We need to further develop plans to involve the MUA in a dispute on an issue and at a time of our choosing.and doesn't it also say:It would be preferable for any major dispute to be one for which the government has planned in accordance with its own timetable.Prime Minister, didn't you mislead the parliament when you said that no-one but the MUA had generated the sacking of the Patrick's work force?5926Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—What a joke. It is very interesting that there has been one question on native title, one question on the issue of the day. Isn't this a marvellous little performance?—a little, noisy performance by the Australian Labor Party on the last day of this sitting. It is a very interesting performance. All the fire and brimstone from the Leader of the Opposition last night about native title, and we got one, pathetic, irrelevant question—Opposition members interjecting—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order on relevance—ZD4Mr HOWARD—What is the point of order?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will wait until he is called. When the House is silent, including the members of the Labor Party, the member for Hotham has a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—It relates to standing order 145 on relevance. Clearly the question was related to their complicit involvement in a conspiracy on the waterfront and he has not mentioned one aspect of the waterfront, only Wik.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. He is no longer raising a point of order. The Prime Minister is in order. The Prime Minister is relevant.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the Labor Party know full well that there is a capacity in answering questions that gives you far more licence than allowed in asking them. The Prime Minister is in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Trembling in our shoes, we are. Oh, yes. Of course I have not misled the House. Naturally, as I always do when I am confronted with alleged quotations by the member for Hotham, I will have a look at what I said.DT4CREANMr Crean—They are your quotes, you fraud!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable members of the Labor Party will remain silent if they wish question time to proceed.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—It is not just us. Look over there.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—At the moment it is not all the members of the opposition but particularly one section of it which seems to be creating a lot more noise. I call the honourable member for Mallee.59265926Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the minister outline the benefits to the pastoral and mining industries of the government's successful negotiations of native title arrangements that do not compromise the 10-point plan? What will this mean for invest ment and jobs in rural and regional Australia? What has been the response from the rural regions of Australia to this breakthrough?5927Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question.RH4KERRMr Kerr—What do you say the fast rule of politics is?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Denison.4K4Mr ANDERSON—I represent a large rural electorate with a very substantial Aboriginal population, and settlement of this issue will be welcomed by all at the coalface. They have been calling for an end to the division in their communities that has really been ripping at their social fabric. Community leaders have been saying to me for quite some time that they want this uncertainty ended. The government has never sought, I should note, to deny the existence of native title. We have sought to balance the interests of all parties in this, and I believe we have come to an honourable outcome. I commend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party for their work in this area, as well as many others.As in my electorate, I believe that right across the nation the breakthrough on native title legislation is being welcomed, particularly in rural Australia. All Australians, but particularly those living in rural areas, wanted this issue resolved, and now it will be. Senator Harradine, who is a decent man, is in my view to be commended for the responsible and principled position he has taken. We are now in a position to end the uncertainty which has reigned for five years. Our 10-point plan will dramatically improve the operation of the Native Title Act. It will resolve the difficulties that arose as a result of the High Court's Wik decision and it will do so in a way that respects the rights of all parties: pastoralists, indigenous Australians and miners. It ensures that Australians are treated equally. It ensures that we have a secure land title system underpinning investment in the nation.Very importantly, the principles underlying and underpinning the 10-point plan have not been compromised. That has been recognised by farming communities and by the mining industry. I believe that time will demonstrate that the new arrangements are very sound indeed. I note that the NFF has commented that Australia's farmers have accepted that the agreement on native title is `the only tenable option on the table'. The Minerals Council said in their statement:The amended Act will allow the industry to get on with its business in a way which respects the rights of others and continues to generate wealth and jobs for all Australians.On that note, it is very important that we do not underestimate the benefits that ending all this uncertainty will bring. ABS figures show that exploration spending in the minerals and energy sector has now fallen for three quarters up to the quarter that ended in March 1998. Exploration spending is the lifeblood of the minerals and energy sector so vitally important to the national economy and to rural and regional Australia. It is as well that the uncertainty in relation to this matter is now brought to an end.59275927McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall telling the parliament on 27 October last year, in relation to your negotiations with the MUA on the waterfront:We are approaching this on a constructive basis. It is important that we sit down and talk with the respective parties. . . . From the government's point of view, we . . . are prepared to sit down with people and constructively talk . . . Minister, doesn't this document recommend this:A key part of the interventionist strategy is that the MUA should be caught by surprise. To this end it may be quite appropriate to keep the unions wondering whether the Government would settle for an evolutionary approach.Minister, doesn't this show you were never, ever negotiating in good faith? Why should anyone trust you in the future?5927Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—If you read this document, which pre-dates the other document that you released with a lot of fanfare a few weeks ago, the cabinet submission in July, what it says is this:Any serious attempt to implement our maritime reform agenda is likely to create a fight with the MUA.So what? Obviously, if we proceeded to sell ANL, they were likely to pull a national strike. What do you expect us to do: do what you did and cave in? Is that what your expectation was? Or would you perhaps have expected us to get some advice? Would that be your expectation? Perhaps we would, on 9 September 1994, have asked for some advice.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Answer the question!WI4Mr REITH—I am answering the question. You find this difficult, don't you? I might have asked for some advice from the head of the legal division. I might have said, `Well, we have got this problem with the MUA. What might we do about it?'10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his answer through the chair.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, if you had been the minister for industrial relations at the time, you might have received some advice, which would have been a brief which outlined certain legal remedies available to you as the government of the day, simply because you were attempting to implement government policy. That advice would deal with bans, it would deal with standing down of employees and it would give you advice about the cancellation of MUA awards and agreements. That is interesting, isn't it? They were carrying on about awards yesterday. They were taking advice on cancelling them.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The answer to the question has nothing to do with the question. The question first took a quote from the honourable gentleman which suggested that he always talked constructively and in good faith, and then quoted from an extensive part of that document which went to the part of the conspiracy, and that dealt with the need to keep the MUA in the cart for talks while you were working out what you were doing. Mr Speaker, he is not going to those issues at all; he is evading them.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition would know that, within the ambit of the paper, there are quite a number of issues raised.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—But he is not answering the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have warned the member for Brisbane and I suggest that he remain silent. Secondly, you are making allegations regarding conspiracies which are quite outside the ambit of the standing orders at this stage and this nature of proceedings. The minister at this stage is within standing orders but I suggest he address specifically the question that has been canvassed of him.WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker, the manner in which I am addressing it is to say that any government has a national responsibility to understand the remedies available to it in the event of a national strike being undertaken by the MUA, which would basically paralyse economic activity. We certainly took that advice. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we took that advice. Were we alone in doing so? No, we were not. Was it a conspiracy that, at the time back in September—DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes, it was; yes, it was!WI4Mr REITH—You answer the question before I have put it—which shows you what a mug you are. The fact of the matter is: was it a conspiracy for the Labor Party to be getting this advice in September 1994 when they were then negotiating with the MUA? Was it a conspiracy for the Labor Party to be taking advice on the action that they could take under the Crimes Act for interference with international trade? Was it a conspiracy by the then Labor minister to take advice on the dismissal of employees?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order which goes to relevance: he is dealing with a document of 1994—an options paper. This is not an options paper, Mr Speaker. This particular paper states exactly what you intend to do—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is arguing the point.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—and you are not dealing with the question that was directly put to you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the Leader of the Opposition has a point of relevance, I suggest the minister address the specificity of the question that has been raised.WI4Mr REITH—I certainly will, Mr Speaker. The point I make is that the government did have options, in the same way that the previous government had options and we had meetings to discuss it. Were those meetings a conspiracy? I say they were no more a conspiracy than the Leader of the Opposition conspired when he was on a committee.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Answer the question.WI4Mr REITH—I wonder if the previous government had a committee as well; I wonder. Would people expect such a committee? I wonder if that committee had the then Prime Minister of the day, none other than Mr Keating.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, not so.WI4Mr REITH—Did that committee have none other than the interjector rising to his feet?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition, this is entirely relevant at the moment. You raised the question. The minister will resume his seat.Mrs Draper interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Makin will remain silent. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It goes to relevance: you have sought from the minister that he stick to the point of the question that was asked of him and he has not done so. I would ask you to bring him to the point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition, I pointed out, used the word `conspiracy'. He has talked about meetings of ministers and at the moment, as I understand it, the minister's reply specifically relates to those two issues. The minister will resume his seat. The member for Canberra has a point of order.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, in reply to that point of order, you referred to some things which the Leader of the Opposition might have said. In fact, Mr Speaker, I asked the question and I did not relate it to conspiracy and did not refer to it. I referred to whether he was bargaining in good faith, and he has not responded to that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would point out that your efforts have not been helped then by an extension of the question and the way in which the question relating to relevance was raised by your colleague, the Leader of the Opposition. The minister is still responding to the question. I will ask him specifically—DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, come on!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent. The minister will reply to the question.WI4Mr REITH—Let me make my concluding remarks. The allegation is made by the Labor Party but the fact of the matter is that, when they were in government, they had a subcommittee of cabinet doing exactly what we were doing.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—The incredible hypocrisy and fraudulent behaviour of you people knows no bounds!Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—People should remember that the ANL board back in 1994 proposed—DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, come on, Mr Speaker.WI4Mr REITH—It is an interesting reflection.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—WI4Mr REITH—No. Let me finish, Mr Speaker. They actually proposed—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I know you are trying to assist but, in fact, I was more concerned about some of the allegations that the minister was making than his relevance. The minister needs not to make accusations about other people or use words which suggest that they should be by substantive motion. The minister will remain relevant. He was talking about fraudulent behaviour before.WI4Mr REITH—I just conclude by giving the House a glimpse into 1994, Mr Speaker, because the question was whether or not we have acted in good faith. People have got to remember that in 1994 the Labor government did a deal with Mr Corrigan to sell him a quarter of Australian Stevedores, which formed the basis for Patrick's, and the minister for industrial relations of the day made sure that Mr Corrigan got a loan to effect the purchase from ANL. Mr Speaker, there is a lot of things yet to be said about this and, if they want to go on about it, we are happy to do so.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—We will.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for North Sydney.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—We will certainly be.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members will remain silent. The member for Kingsford-Smith, you have a very good idea of the way in which question time works—7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Well, he certainly should by now.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—and it is not a time for extended debate. The honourable member for North Sydney has the call and I trust he will put a question. The member for Prospect will remain silent. The member for North Sydney has the call.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Your trust is well placed, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you.59305930Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, how will the Australian community, particularly some of the 30,000 businesses in my electorate, benefit from taxation reform? Treasurer, what steps are you and other members of the Howard government taking to inform the community of the desperate need for taxation reform?5930Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for North Sydney for his question. I can say to the small businesses that he represents, of course, that they will be helped greatly by the fact that this government intends to simplify the complexities of the Australian taxation system, give tax relief for middle income earners, get poverty traps out of the system and rationalise inheritance taxes. Members will be aware that I have written today to every member of the parliament, asking them whether or not they would like a reprint of the government booklet In need of tax reform. . . . The reasons I have done that are twofold. One is that the print runs of this booklet have now been exhausted twice. The second reason is that we have had a couple of ALP members come down to my office requesting copies of this booklet.They generally come down at night, very silently, and ask sotto voce, hoping no doubt that the ACTU presidents do not see them, whether they can please have a copy of this book, In need of tax reform . . . This is an offer which is now open to all of the Australian Labor Party. We will be producing this booklet; you can put in your orders and send copies out to your constituents.No sooner had the government announced that the Labor Party could get copies of this booklet than I received requests for the government to do a reprint of this booklet—A guide to tax reform of July 1985. This 1985 guide to tax reform was, you will recall, the guide to tax reform which was solidly supported by Mr Beazley and Mr Evans—the old Mal Colston defence team—Beazley and Evans! Let me tell you the principles they supported. They supported a broad based consumption tax set at 12½ per cent. They said that would provide large income tax cuts; they said that would reduce marginal tax rates. Beazley and Evans said that that would increase the tax take from people who continue to avoid or evade income tax. They said that would provide enough revenue to enable a more generous net benefit for wage and salary earners. They said that if the Australian public supported the Beazley-Evans consumption tax that would enable the wholesale sales tax to be abolished.That was where Beazley and Evans were in 1985. Where are they today? Let me ask the House this question: is there one area of policy where Mr Beazley has been able to lead public opinion? Is there one area of policy where he has been able to take a stand?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Pauline Hanson!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Beazley has not been able to lay a glove on One Nation because he has adopted their economic policy—economic Hansonism. Pauline Hanson says that she is against the sale of Telstra and Kim Beazley says that he is against the sale of Telstra. Pauline Hanson says that she is against tax reform; Kim Beazley says that he is against tax reform. Pauline Hanson says she is against competition policy; Kim Beazley says he is against competition policy. Kim Beazley says he wants tariffs; Pauline Hanson says she wants tariffs. This is what Kim Beazley said on radio 2HD on 11 April 1997:What you have there is a situation where as far as her industry policy is concerned you might as well trust the authors, which are us.That is Beazley trying to claim credit for the policies of One Nation and Pauline Hanson. This is somebody who has been unable to take a stand on anything. The only policy he has thought up is a policy for his next term in opposition because he is somebody who is bereft of any leadership whatsoever.59315931Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall a statement from Minister Reith on 4 June this year in relation to the funding of your waterfront strategy in which he said:Basically the funds were expended on obtaining reports.Prime Minister, doesn't this document recommend, by contrast:The Prime Minister approves the allocation of an initial budget of $2 million to set up and operate [a small] team—including basic research and intelligence and law and order people tasked to `continue the detailed planning' and `prepare for implementation of the interventionist strategy'? And didn't the cabinet submission of July 1997 by Minister Reith and Minister Sharp report that this had occurred? Prime Minister, can you tell this House precisely what taxpayers' funds have been spent on in regard to this operational team and the nature of the activities that this team undertook?5931Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will investigate the detail of that question and write back to the member as appropriate.8I4MARTINMr Martin—You are hopeless.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You are enjoying it, aren't you Stephen? You like it. You give yourself away when you smile like that. It shows how confected this little exercise really is. I have absolutely no reluctance saying that we set out in a very determined way to achieve reform of the Australian waterfront. We make no apology for that fact. I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Australian Labor Party should be suggesting that there is something strange about a government wanting to reform the Australian waterfront getting a range of options from its advisers. From time immemorial governments have done that. The difference between the Labor Party and the coalition on this issue is that we were not prepared to do the bidding of the trade union movement. We were prepared to stand up for the interests of the Australian community. We were prepared to stand up for the interests of those Australians who were tired of their industries being destroyed by an uncompetitive—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point or order going to relevance, the member for Melbourne asked a specific question about—ZD4Mr HOWARD—And I am addressing it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No you are not. He asked about $2 million of public funds spent to establish a team and the work it was to do. That is what the question is about. It was seeking confirmation of that fact. There has been nothing of it in his answer.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—You lot spent about $420 million.WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, that is an irrelevant and frivolous point of order from a leader of the opposition whose tactics have failed very badly today. He ought to be sat down when he puts up these irrelevant points of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is being answered at the moment within the general embrace of the question. The Prime Minister is in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am indebted to the honourable member for O'Connor, who reminds me that, when it comes to expenditure on waterfront matters, the former Labor government spent about $130 million of taxpayers' money without achieving any measurable reforms and presided over a process which cost about $420 million. At the end of that process you still had the monumental rorts, an unproductive Australian waterfront and crane movement rates that were abysmal by world standards. In other words, they spent $130 million of the taxpayers' funds of Australia and another $300 million of the industry funds to achieve absolutely nothing. By contrast, we were prepared to embrace a determined effort to bring about fundamental reform of the Australian waterfront, and I make absolutely no apology for that policy objective at all.59325932Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, in considering the immense contribution which the ethnic community has made to my electorate and to our nation, can you outline to the House the impact One Nation's proposed changes to Australia's intake of skilled migrants would have on the nation's economy?5932Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question on this matter, and I would simply observe that the honourable member for Deakin is one of a significant number of members of parliament in this House who came to Australia often young and without any English language capacity and have demonstrated how they can contribute at such a very significant and high level. We commend the honourable member for Deakin for the ongoing contribution that he is making. The honourable member for Deakin gives me the opportunity to say to the House—Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—and I am sorry it is not to all of the House—that one of the most significant steps taken by this government has been to shift the balance of the immigration program in favour of skilled migration and to increase substantially the standards of the skilled category applicants. These changes do deliver significant economic, employment and budgetary benefits to Australia.Earlier this year I released a report by Econtech, using the Murphy model, that demonstrated that Australians will be per person $95 better off per year by the year 2007 as a result of the changes that the government has introduced. And there is more to come as a result of the further changes to finetune the independent and skilled Australian linked categories that the government has foreshadowed. The per capita growth in economic terms is essential to enhancing Australia's employment needs. The program that has been recast in that direction has a significant benefit in budgetary terms as well. There has been independent analysis undertaken by the Department of Finance and Administration as well as my own department that shows that these two categories of migration entry have a highly positive impact on the Commonwealth budgets and, I have to say, the budgets of other governments.These benefits are achieved because the independent migrants perform well in the Australian labour market. Within three years of arrival, the longitudinal survey shows that they have a labour participation rate of over 90 per cent and an employment rate of over 95 per cent. By this time, they have average incomes of over $40,000 per annum and are obviously making a major contribution to the nation's tax base. They have brought with them skills, often capital, new ideas and overseas contacts which enable us to expand our global markets. Unlike those who come through the family reunion program—particularly as we saw in the past when it was up to 70 per cent and, unfortunately, they were very often manipulating entry—these migrants are the ones who create jobs and very significant economic benefits.What is the One Nation Party proposing? They are proposing to rebalance the program against skilled migration. They are going to reduce it to 33 per cent of the program. They are going to eliminate entirely those two categories which have brought such substantial economic benefits as I have outlined. The fact is that Australia does lose about 30,000 people each year overseas. They are, in the main, young and skilled Australians who take up employment opportunities overseas, and we ought not be surprised that that happens. But, if you reduce the skilled migration numbers—as the member for Kalgoorlie pointed out to me—and enhance the family reunion program, you are in fact deskilling Australia, and the consequences for us in terms of our ability to compete in international markets and our ability to become much more engaged in world terms is to tie a hand behind our back and leave us exposed.The very important aspect of the migration program is that it enables us to fill the gaps that the education system cannot fill. As was pointed out last night, the education system is important and, as I saw in discussing some of our programs, the skilling of the Australian labour market is absolutely crucial for ensuring that the unemployment problems amongst our youth are addressed.I want to conclude my comments by adding to an answer that I gave yesterday on this same matter. The changes that are intended to family reunion would ensure that, for instance, no orphan relatives would be able to enter Australia. Some colleagues have asked me, `Who are the orphan relatives who would be left out?' It is a relatively small number, but the orphan relatives arise because sometimes the parents of children die in car accidents overseas and the only family members who are able to provide for their ongoing needs are here in Australia. It is a compassionate response to a need through a family reunion program, and one that the honourable member and her party seem to ignore and think has very little relevance.59335933Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that the child support and social security systems make it possible for a custodial parent to receive, for example, between $50,000 and $100,000 a year in tax-free child support from his or her ex-partner as well as be eligible for the supporting parent benefit and other concessions? Doesn't this make a farce of not only social security but also equity in the implementation of child support? When will the government bring fairness into the woeful child support system?5933Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I will get a detailed answer, as I did before in relation to a similar matter, which will be available at the earliest opportunity.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter. Sorry, the member for Paterson.59335933Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—I have not moved quite that far yet, Mr Speaker. My question—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are close, but I cannot see any similarity in your physique.LL6Mr BOB BALDWIN—is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Minister, would you advise this House of the major roadwork initiatives in New South Wales implemented since the election of the Howard-Fischer government? Minister, could you detail the progress of the roadworks in my electorate of Paterson, in particular the works on the Raymond Terrace bypass and the Bulahdelah-Coolongolook section of the Pacific Highway? Minister, how is this investment helping reduce the carnage that has been occurring on these roads?8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As you had already called me, I thought you may be prepared to allow me to ask the minister to also explain the funding cuts to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat.5933Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the member for Paterson for his question. He does represent the area of the Hunter very well. He was elected into this place arguing the case for more funding on the Pacific Highway, and our government has provided it. It is quite instructive, if you have a look at the budget figures over the last few years, you will see that our government provided $1.62 billion for roads in Australia in this year's budget. In the last Labor budget, it was $1.56 billion. In this year's budget, we had allocations for money on roads of national importance, including the Pacific Highway, in both the New South Wales and Queensland categories.If you have a look at the figures for roads of national importance in the 1995-96 budget, the last Labor budget, there was nothing. What was in there for the Pacific Highway? Nothing. The member for Cowper has been in here for many years arguing for funding of the Pacific Highway and, at last, it took a coalition government to deliver it. The Australian Labor Party, in government, continually argued against funding for the Pacific Highway.In his question, the member for Paterson asked about a couple of specific projects in his area. I am pleased to inform the member for Paterson that one of the major projects being undertaken on the Pacific Highway is the Bulahdelah-Coolongolook deviation. The road has seen many hundreds of fatalities over the years and the deviation is targeted for completion in June of 1999. The other major project being undertaken in the member's electorate is the Raymond Terrace bypass, which will be completed by December 1998.I reiterate, for the benefit of the House: this work is being undertaken in conjunction with the New South Wales government by the coalition federal government after 13 years of being promised by Labor and never delivered. It was a 14th year promise, and it took members, like the member for Paterson, arguing the case to get the funding for the Pacific Highway. I assure the member for Paterson we will continue our commitment to the Pacific Highway. The member for Paterson will be back here in the next parliament, representing the electorate of Paterson and arguing for funding on the Pacific Highway.59345934McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall telling John Laws on 22 April this year:The only goal we seek . . . is to have voluntary unionism on the Australian waterfront . . . At no stage have I ever advocated that people should be sacked because they belong to a trade union because that would be against the law that we brought in in 1996.Prime Minister, doesn't this wonderful document, which you ticked off and endorsed, advocate the replacement of the existing work force with `a new non-union work force'? Isn't it illegal—as you acknowledged to John Laws, so it must be right—for you to sack a union work force and replace it with an exclusively non-union work force? Haven't you not only misled the Australian people but also broken your own law?5934Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No. The situation remains that, as I have said on numerous occasions, our goal since being elected was to achieve reform of the Australian waterfront, to work with others to achieve that goal in accordance with the laws of Australia.59345934Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh, poor Ross! Take a point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am delighted to hear that there is so much interest in the competition that is quite apparent in the government ranks. I trust we might see some similar competition throughout the House.OK6Mr NAIRN—My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Can the minister outline how the federal government has responded to the very real concern in rural and regional Australia that the forest industries need a stable and secure policy framework that encourages investment and job creation? How does this contrast with other approaches to forest policy in Australia?5934Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I certainly acknowledge his enormous interest in, and contribution to, the debate about forest policy in this country. And he, of course, enjoys some very good company in the House—the member for Page, the member for McMillan, the member for Gippsland, the member for Corangamite, the member for Cowper, the member for Paterson, the member for Braddon and the member for McEwen—all of them absolutely committed to doing something that the previous regime in this country could not, which was to give Australia a stable and secure policy framework that would encourage investment and job creation in our forest industry. We have achieved an enormous amount in that regard. Again, we have achieved something the previous administration was never able to achieve: we have a number of regional forest agreements in place. Wherever they have been put in place, as the members who have worked so hard for them know, not only are people who are worried about conservation values enormously reassured but investment and jobs are starting to flow. It is, I believe, a real mark of what good policy actively pursued by government determined to see outcomes can achieve.A couple of nights ago in this place the government delivered on another major commitment as part of its regional forest agreement strategy. We introduced the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 which underpins those RFAs and gives legislative certainty. I believe that the cornerstone of this approach will ensure the real base for industry to bring forth the investment that we need so much in this country.It is absurd that almost alone amongst our agricultural industries—instead of being an enormous exporter—this one puts us in a position where the industries are so paralysed that we have a net deficit in trade in timber and paper products of around $2 billion.The job losses—the jobs you people exported, because you would not put in place a stable regime—serve as an absolute discredit to you as self-proclaimed champions of the interests of people who are looking for jobs in this country. The fact is that now the industry is able to say that they welcome very strongly what we have done. NAFI says:This bill deserves the support of all interest groups in the forest debate and all political parties as it addresses the key issues of jobs and communities, as well as forest conservation and sustainable forest management.The RFA process provides a balanced outcome designed to meet a very high standard of conservation criteria, as well as taking into account the social and economic needs of rural Australia.This is in total contrast to what the Labor Party managed when it was in government.The interesting question now is: will they come clean and demonstrate their support for what we have done in the interests of rural and regional Australians?59355935Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Does the minister recall saying at a Treasury Place doorstop on 8 May 1998:No-one to my knowledge had any knowledge of any plans anywhere. As to, did anybody have any plans of which we were aware, the answer is no, absolutely not.Minister, doesn't this document show that both firms—that is, Patrick and P&O—have embarked on planning for a major dispute during which they would sack their work force and recommence operations using alternative labour? Is it not true that you did have detailed knowledge of plans to provoke a waterfront dispute and then backed the sacking of the entire work force and its replacement with another? Minister, were you lying on 8 May or just deceitful?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that final implication. That part of the question is out of order. The rest of question is in order.DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order, I was asking a question as to whether it was a lie.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The last part of the question contains words that can only be used in this place in a substantive motion. It is therefore out of order, but the rest of the question is in order. I call the Minister to reply.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Tell the truth for a change!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will stop being smart.5935Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I was asked whether I knew about Dubai. I said I did not know about DubaiDT4CREANMr Crean—Have you read it?WI4Mr REITH—I have seen the transcript. I was asked also whether I knew of any other such place and the answer was no.DT4CREANMr Crean—You are guilty. Guilty!WI4Mr REITH—I have read this document. You get far too excited, Simon. This document is three months before the cabinet submission.DT4CREANMr Crean—So what?WI4Mr REITH—Let's read some of this document, Simon; you are so entertained by it. It says here:You can either sit back and do nothing, or as a government you can make preparations in the event of a national strike.This document says that, even if you do nothing, the chances are you could get a national strike.DT4CREANMr Crean—Wrong! Wrong. Read it.WI4Mr REITH—You quoted the document to us. Let us therefore look at the document. It says:Even without government encouragement a non-union firm may eventually chose to enter the industry and in that circumstance obviously you would have a national strike.What is our responsibility?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What did you do? You set out to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have warned the member for Brisbane.WI4Mr REITH—Our responsibility is to make sure that whatever can be done to prepare for such a contingency ought to be done, and that is what we did as a government.Mr Speaker, I will tell you the reason why the tactics committee on the other side decided to pull out of their little pile a document that was made back in April 1997, before the other documents that they have. The reason is that, when you look at what has happened on the waterfront, recently in Sydney the MUA unanimously voted to support changes in Patrick's operations in Sydney and to man the premises on the basis of our productivity rate of 25 crane lifts per hour.I had the quote before about the meeting I had with John Coombs in October 1997. When I took over full responsibility in early October 1997, the first thing I did was to make arrangements to see and talk to both the employers and the union. When I was given responsibility, the first thing I did was to get around and talk to all the industry players. When I went for that meeting with John Coombs, do you know what he told me when it came to productivity rates? He told me that a crane rate of 24 to 25 was unattainable. You ought to have that document as well and table it. That is what he told me.In fact, in the last week or so the MUA itself has finally voted for the government's own productivity target. If you want an example of success, the fact that they have finally voted for it is that measure of success. We have abolished the nick.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—We have not been the ones telling lies.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Burke will remain silent.WI4Mr REITH—We have abolished double headers and we have halved the manning levels on the Australian waterfront—something after 13 years you could never achieve.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Everyone was telling lies except you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Bourke will remain silent. I warn him.59365936Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the Australian government's dealings with the United States regarding the economic crisis in Indonesia, and has the government made a contribution to resolving the Asian economic crisis?5936Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. It gives me the opportunity to remind the House that the Australian government has been extremely active in assisting Indonesia through the economic crisis which it has confronted, and also assisting the east Asian region generally throughout that economic crisis.I would remind the House of two particular things that I have done in recent times. In March of this year I visited the United States and met with not just the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, but with the Managing Director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, the President of the World Bank and officials from the United States Treasury to talk about the crisis in Indonesia and to urge on the International Monetary Fund a more moderate approach to the very difficult task of rebuilding the Indonesian economy. The IMF has been responsive to representations by Australia and by others to take a rather different course from the course they originally took. So in that respect I think we have been very helpful to Indonesia at this difficult time.I also spoke with the United States Secretary of State more recently, last month, about this whole question and I made it clear to her, as I think my colleague the Treasurer did to his American counterpart a couple of weeks earlier, that in dealing with the East Asian economic crisis we do not want to see the International Monetary Fund applying political conditionality. And I was very pleased that the United States Secretary of State responded positively to my representations on that issue.I make those points simply to illustrate that, for those who think Australia has not done enough to assist Indonesia during this period and, what is more, who suggest we should do more in encouraging the United States to take a constructive approach to Indonesia during this crisis, I do not think there is any country that could reasonably have been expected to do more than Australia and the Australian government have done. The Prime Minister has himself been extremely active in this issue—the Treasurer has; the Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister has; I have—and I know that in Indonesia, amongst all different political complexions, there is a great deal of gratitude for what Australia has done.Let me, in conclusion, remind the House that Australia and Japan are the only two countries in the world which have supported all three IMF packages. The only two countries in the world! We have also provided a significant amount of development assistance to Indonesia during this time. So, to those who think we have not done enough, let me say as politely as I possibly can, they are wrong. Australia has done an enormous amount. We have shown leadership in terms of our relationship with the United States and we have shown leadership throughout the East Asian region in addressing this most difficult of international issues.59375937Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall saying:We want to assert the very simple principle that truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life.And:I want to establish a bond of trust between the people and the government, to bring back the time when you can say something and people will actually believe it.In the face of overwhelming evidence that you planned, prepared and executed an operation to sack a work force and replace it with another, haven't you deceived the parliament, manipulated this dispute and broken your bond of trust with the Australian people? Haven't you forfeited your right to be trusted by any Australian?5937Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I completely reject the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition. I reject it completely. I stand by what I have said before, and I repeat it, that we were elected on a policy of reforming the Australian waterfront. We set out to achieve that goal because it is in the interests of the Australian people. The commitment I made to the Australian people, and the promise that I made to the Australian people, was to do all I could to achieve a reformed Australian waterfront, not out of some kind of ideological zeal but because I believe that the Australian people deserve reforms. I believe that the efforts that the government has undertaken have delivered a more competitive waterfront and that we have achieved reforms on the Australian waterfront beyond the capacity of any alternative government in Australia and beyond the beliefs of many sections of the Australian community.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I seek leave to move—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Parramatta. We are still in question time.DT4CREANMr Crean—You gave him the call!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did not call the Leader of the Opposition. There are a lot of people standing here. The member for Parramatta.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You may leave the House, the member for Hotham, thank you very much, under standing order 304A.DT4CREANMr Crean—What for?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Because you keep on interrupting at the time of my making a fair and equitable decision. Under standing order 304A you will leave the House for an hour.The honourable member for Hotham thereupon withdrew from the chamber.59385938Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade.Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have already left the House. The member for Parramatta has the call.3K6Mr ROSS CAMERON—The minister will be aware of the statement yesterday by President Bill Clinton to the Chinese government and people that, if the Chinese want to have access to the American consumer dollar, they must provide fair access to America and to other countries to the consumers of China. Does the same principle apply to Australian exporters, such as those in western Sydney and in my electorate of Parramatta, and in particular what efforts has this government been taking to open up new markets around the world for Australian exporters?5938Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question which relates to the important matter of the visit to China by the President of the USA—a visit which has proceeded through Xian, Beijing and Shanghai, and he will move on to Hong Kong at about this time—and has led to a number of trade talks taking place between not only the United States President and Beijing interlocutors but also Charlene Barshefski, US trade representative.Your question, of course, I think goes to the nub of the matter: those who would call for open markets access might also themselves provide that market access. Firstly, with regard to the United States, the Jones Act, which blocks Australia from exporting high-tech wave piercing ferries from Australia to the USA remains an unacceptable non-tariff measure. Secondly, we welcome the recent increase in the sugar quota for Australian exporters into the USA—I would point out that that relates to another aspect—and that will increase the tonnages from all elements of the Australian sugar industry. But there is more work to be done because in fact there should be no quotas. It should not be a restricted form of export from Australia to the USA by way of a quota mechanism, albeit that that is still covered in the Uruguay Round at this time. I might add that 12 countries are now giving Australian sugar exporters zero tariff into their key markets.Let me turn to another area to pick up very much on the question of the member for Parramatta, who represents his exporters very capably. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that consequent upon setting up the market development task force and driving that forward with its chair, Philip Flood, and more recently Dr Ashton Calvert, I am pleased to say that further progress has been made in Australian exporters getting improved market access, especially in the services industry. In relation to China, additional banking licences and legal licences have been granted to Australian companies as well as insurance company licences. Improved market access for wool, apples, wine, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, motor vehicle parts and optical fibres have been secured.There has been a successful negotiation of a protocol on health requirements for slaughter cattle to enter the PRC from Australia and a number of other steps, including the approved destination status for Australia—just one of five countries and secured by the work of the Minister for Sport and Tourism, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other ministers. Indeed, that moment in Beijing—when the Minister for Sport and Tourism held the attention of the entire audience, paused for two minutes after the translation and then, when invited for his return to reply, did so in fluent Mandarin—was a very similar moment in building a further breakthrough with regard to our tourism connections between Australia and China. We have expanded market access, facilitated the expansion of exports as a consequence and, as a result, created more jobs here in Australia.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Censure Motion5939593915:17:005939Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Prime Minister for:(1) his authorisation and funding of a secret Government strategy to provoke an industrial dispute involving stevedores dismissing their employees and rehiring new non-union workers under different arrangements;(2) his evasive denials of the existence of such a strategy;(3) his willingness to embark upon potentially illegal actions in contravention of the Workplace Relations Act, and the potential exposure of the Commonwealth, and all taxpayers, to substantial damages;(4) the collusion between the Government and Patrick Stevedoring in, and Government encouragement and foreknowledge of, a scheme to sack Patrick's workforce and replace it with an alternative workforce; and(5) undermining the employment security of all Australian workers through the use of aggressive tactics involved in the strategy adopted on the waterfront.Where is Danny Sankey now that we really need him? Where is a person prepared to take a legal case to protect the rights of ordinary Australians, to deal with a conspiracy that has been organised and coordinated out of this government to deny Australian citizens their lawful rights? Where is a person going to emerge to hold to book this government for its paranoid, near-Nixonian behaviour in this area? What the document that we tabled today reveals is this: it completes the cycles of documents. It is the one to which John Howard was responding in his letter to John Sharp of 21 April 1997 and in which he said:I support the interventionist strategy you have outlined, and it is the forerunner of the proposal that went to cabinet on 7 July. Significant passages are the same in both documents.When you read through this document, you will understand that it is not an options document; it is a document headed in one direction. Any mention of alternative options is there simply to dismiss them, and dismiss them in detail. The object of this document is to arrange a set of circumstances, to put in place a team, to set down a set of principles, to organise an industrial dispute on the waterfront and to put a shade over that industrial dispute to ensure that it occurs at a point in time when it is seen as tactically most convenient for the government.As you read through the document there is one thing missing from it: that is, any conception of the national interest, any conception of the needs of the Australian people, any conception of what ought to be done about waterfront reform. Indeed, when it dismisses the so-called evolutionary approach, the basis of its dismissal lies largely not in the view that that approach would fail—how could it, because the evolutionary approach had been succeeding repeatedly when used?—but that there was a risk that it would be operated on a basis or would occur in circumstances that were not to the government's political needs or liking. That is all. This is a document about the political interests of the Liberal Party. It is a document about the ideology of the Liberal Party. It is a document about the paranoia of this government about a set of Australian workers. It is a classic Nixon document aimed at the destruction of people they consider as enemies, not people whom the public consider as enemies.It is a document which is a link in a chain of one of the most massive abuses of power any minister or government has engaged in in this country—a massive abuse of power at the taxpayers' expense. Let me quote from a number of elements of this document. Let me go to the pros and cons of the so-called two approaches in this document, which states:The interventionist approach is undoubtedly the only strategy that holds out the prospect of achieving the proposed objectives in this term of parliament. Major change is unlikely to occur under an evolutionary approach for a number of years. The interventionist approach undoubtedly entails substantial risks and would inevitably involve a major waterfront stoppage in which the government will be actively involved and which will in the short term impose a high economic cost. Our opponents will attack us for the cost of this dispute and will attribute our conduct to an ideological hatred of the MUA and the union movement.How surprising! It continues:There is no doubt that if the government decides to go down this track, it would be imperative to achieve as swift a victory as possible. It needs to be appreciated this strategy leaves us, to some extent, in the hands of the existing stevedoring companies. There is always a risk that they will cave in and/or make tactical errors. These risks would have to be managed. The MUA will try and protect its position of power while minimising its vulnerability to legal action. The courts and the AIRC cannot always be relied upon to act in a decisive and timely manner against the union.That was about the one perceptive part of this document. Indeed, that is what they did.What you see when you go through the rest of this document is a statement that says, `These outfits involved in it may be weak; therefore, we have to put in place the mechanisms that will underpin a position that both convinces them that the government will be wilful in this regard and will take the lead as far as they are concerned.' This document goes on to talk about how you organise it. The document has a section in it called `Triggers', which shows how you get your industrial dispute. It reads:The use of a maritime issue would make it easier to sack stevedores for striking over an issue which was not directly relevant to their own employment. . . There are three maritime and shipping issues which could cause a strike: the sale or wind-up of ANL, the abolition of cabotage and the award simplification process, including the abolition of the seaman's engagement system. Of the three, cabotage has been cleverly manipulated by the MUA using ships of shame and the spectre of oil on the beaches, while the importance of abolishing the SES would be an obscure issue to the general public. The sale of ANL is a clearer issue and would be readily understood by the public, especially as the MUA has already prevented the previous government from doing it—so they say. It goes on:There is some doubt that the sale of ANL by itself would be sufficient to bring the stevedores out on strike. However, it may be possible to combine ANL with one or two other issues and to keep the debate focused on the sale of ANL.This is a truly extraordinary document, this conspiracy document. It goes on to examine further opportunities for putting in place triggers, and says this:Further work will need to be undertaken on possible triggers. In the meantime, no action should be taken that will neutralise any such possible triggers. In terms of timing, it is important not to engage the MUA until both stevedoring firms are in a position to commence restarting operations without the existing work force. On current indications, that is unlikely to be before September or October this year, though planning should proceed as quickly as possible to deal with any industrial action in the meantime. We will need to engage in extensive planning on how to manage a dispute. This includes investigating all legal avenues as well as other action necessary to keep the waterfront operating.What you then do is go out and argue public relations; who are the people that you ought to involve in all of this? They go on to say, for example, in getting the propaganda together:In this regard, some of the work being undertaken or planned by the Productivity Commission—this is to encourage third party individuals to come out in support of themselves—could be brought forward and refocused for the use of these groups.Recollect the use of the Productivity Commission. Are we now expected to believe, in relation to that work being brought forward, that it was conducted on a basis of full and open disclosure and honest intent? Are we to believe that, when it was part of a strategy ticked off by Prime Minister Howard to put in place a process whereby a cloud of lies could be put around a strategy aimed at sacking illegally Australian workers for the simple reason that they belonged to a union?What an utterly dishonourable position to have placed the Productivity Commission in. We wonder how knowing of it they were. Or was it simply an assumption that they could be relied upon to put highly biased accounts down of what was going on on the waterfront? Whatever else there is here, you have compromised the Productivity Commission.WI4REITHMr Reith—You are surprised they would find a lack of productivity; and you reckon there is a conspiracy. You must be joking!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—And you have put this position in place, Mr Minister. You are responsible for it. They go on to recommend to ministers:Ministers' comments in public can afford to be far more restrained and reasonable.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—They failed that test.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No, actually they were.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Not him!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—No, you will recollect that they had nothing to do with any of this. Would they sack Australian workers? `No,' said the Prime Minister, `we do not have anything like that on our plate. We would not contemplate that for a minute. We would not do anything like that.' Then we had Mr Reith out there saying, `I am sitting down with the waterside workers. I am having a chat to them. I am here as an open-minded fellow. We are very happy to hear what they are prepared to do. We are going to put positions to them with integrity.'A key part of this interventionist strategy is that the MUA should be caught by surprise. Then it goes to this—one of the most deceitful and mendacious sentences in it:To this end, it would be quite appropriate to keep the unions wondering whether the government would settle for an evolutionary approach.Then we get the Prime Minister coming out and saying, `The only reason we have this dispute now before us is that the workers have rejected a whole set of reasonable propositions from Patrick and a whole set of reasonable propositions from us, and will not sit down and talk to us.' But at the very beginning of this trouble, before those negotiations took place and the enterprise agreements resulted in the latter part of this year, the government was telling Patrick and everybody else, `String them along until we have in place the position that we want to set them up in.'We had the Prime Minister saying on 13 February this year—almost a year after this document was produced:We don't seek a huge national barney with the MUA over this. We never have. . . . But it would be preferable for any major dispute to be one which the government has planned in accordance with its own timetable.When you go through all of those statements by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), what possible confidence can any Australian have in anything they say to them? In particular, what possible confidence can they have when there has been a point of disagreement with objectives by the government at any particular point of time, be it with ACOSS, on where you might intend to take a tax policy, or be it in regard to the Business Council and where you might intend to take industrial relations?What this public now knows about this government is that, whenever they sit down with the waterfront unions, there is a high likelihood of a sub-agenda that is utterly deceitful and driven by Liberal Party prejudice. Their sub-agenda is ideologically driven by the bitterness of 13 years in opposition during which they sat like Rip Van Winkles as Australia passed them by. This is their desperate effort to take Australia back to being the divided, disunited community that it was when they were last in office. This is what everybody can anticipate from this government. This is the basis on which this government has engaged Australians in the past.Then there are the minister's statements in which he said, `Oh, no, we haven't spent any money on this. No, there's a few consultants out there. In so far as there are consultants, we have spent money on their consultancies. But all that bunch is doing is firing up options to us. They're presenting the facts to us. They're talking to us about the awful occupational health and safety problems of the waterfront. That's what we're spending the money on—not on anything else. No, we haven't spent a cent of money on planning an industrial dispute. We don't know that there are industrial disputes out there. We haven't spent any money on engaging in any planning at all. Others might be planning, but we aren't. We have no part of that. That is not us.' Then, when we pick up this document, what do we read? It says:There will need to be a small team of people to undertake the necessary planning and activities. Some of these people could be full time with others working initially on a part-time basis, but to be made full time if required. The skills would need to include a strategic thinker with IR experience, a good lawyer, basic research intelligence, law and order, public relations, business liaison and a person with practical experience. Security will be critical with information shared on a need-to-know basis. There will have to be close liaison with major stevedoring companies throughout the process. Finally, the situation will need to be kept constantly under review with scope to alter the strategy if circumstances change. In particular, there will need to be constant monitoring of the commitment of the key parties and the actions of the MUA.They need the John Deans for legal work, the Chuck Colsons for the dirty tricks and the Gordon Liddys for the break-in capacity—people to keep these folk under surveillance. Can you think of a more un-Australian approach to public affairs? We pride ourselves on a sense of democracy and openness in relationships between the elected governing representatives and the people who put them there—all the people who put them there, whether those people happen to have voted for the representatives or not. That is what is reasonably anticipated by the Australian public, and that is what they have not got from this government.This has been an extraordinary episode. The minister is attempting to clothe himself with his last fig leaf. In defeating him utterly, the waterfront unions have signed up to a best endeavours effort to achieve his targets. But what paltry targets. Most of the targets were being achieved anyway. In a couple of ports they were not, and they have now signed up to best endeavours. Let me tell you this: there is not a single darn thing that has been achieved that could not have achieved by the so-called evolutionary approach. Indeed, there is nothing in this document to suggest otherwise—nothing at all. What did we get when we were in office? We got a 75 per cent improvement in crane rates.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will remain silent.Mr Tanner interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—We got world best practice on the movement of bulk cargo, which just happens to be 60 per cent of our exports. More than 4,000 stevedores exited the waterfront. Compare that to the few hundred who are leaving now. Compare that to the improvement in crane rates at a couple of ports if best endeavours of 20 to 25 per cent are achieved. And that is it. That is what has been achieved. The government are trying to dress it up by a few other mechanisms. They say that the waterfront workers have settled for an annualised income. The waterfront workers put a proposal on the table on day one that they would settle for that. They have settled for an annualised income. They said they put that proposal on the table on day one of the negotiations. The government have settled for 400 watersiders leaving the waterfront. The waterfront workers' opening position was 200.What have we had since this government put its creepy hands all over this? That word `creepy' is used advisedly in this regard. It relates to the committee for re-election of the president. What they managed to achieve was what could have been achieved before they even started negotiating. Half of what was achieved was put on the table as an ambit claim by the waterfront unions before negotiations began. Really! The minister has clothed himself in some heroic position in his desperate efforts to find some joy in the misery he has inflicted on himself—the same misery he has inflicted on everyone else. All he has emerged with are false claims and utter dishonesty.Here we have it: Watergate, the Gordon Liddys, the E. Howard Hunts, the John Deans and the many party room deep throats grassing to his enemies and leaking nightly to the press in the faint hope of snatching some honour from the noisome episode which has enmeshed you and enmeshed your Prime Minister as they seek to have a piece of his carcass before he goes on the way out. This Prime Minister cannot be trusted. This minister cannot be and is not trusted by anybody in the Australian community. This is an episode of infamy in the history of the politics of this nation, not just in the industrial relations history of this nation. This is an episode that puts massive discredit on the governing process and makes our people insecure. That is what it does. Prime Minister, you should be censured for it, you hopeless case. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:37:005943Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The government rejects this vacuous motion from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley). The Leader of the Opposition has moved this motion after the dispute has been settled because he has had a very bad day. He has had a bad day because the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) yesterday was able to secure the passage of the government's native title amendment legislation.When the rest of Australia has appreciated that the waterfront dispute has been settled for a couple of weeks now, why is it that the opposition today come in and ask questions about it? We who have been around politics long enough know that, when you are having a bad day, you set up a distraction. This is a distraction for the opposition which have for months been hoping to stir social division on the question of Wik and which are now disappointed by the fact that the Prime Minister has secured an honourable compromise and, therefore, the passage of that legislation.Rather than the Prime Minister being the subject of a censure motion, I think the Australian community today will be congratulating and applauding him for his leadership in achieving a tremendous breakthrough on what has really been a difficult and long-running issue for the Australian community. I congratulate the PM on a job well done. He has applied the authority of his office to achieve an outcome which is good for farmers and for miners—which means that it will be good for investment and for jobs—which is fair to indigenous Australians in the treatment of their rights and which provides a system where people are treated equally. That is a huge step forward on the Wik issue and it is largely due to the authority and the negotiating skills of the Prime Minister.So the first thing to be said about this censure motion is that it is just a distraction. It is these sorts of political games that politicians, particularly those in opposition, play that attract people to vote for people like Pauline Hanson. The public see through these silly games and it only puts them off the major political parties.The second reason why the opposition have gone on the attack on this issue is that they are embarrassed at the government's success on waterfront reform. As an indication of that, the Leader of the Opposition said, `There will be a reduction of only 400 in the manning levels of Patrick.' That, of course, is not true. The expected redundancies, as agreed between Patrick and the MUA, are about 743. That is the agreed number. That number will come down in net terms because some people will pick up jobs with the national firm which will end up with the contracting-out maintenance job. There might be 80 people in that, so the 743 will come down to 650 or a figure of that order.The figure is important because it demonstrates that you can run the Patrick organisation with half the people you had at the start of the dispute. That demonstrates in turn that we have had massive overmanning in this organisation, which is the point that we have made all along. The details of the agreement show that this operation can be run much more efficiently—and that is a benefit which is then passed on to consumers and to producers alike. For example, in the agreement there is an agreement to abolish what are known as double-headers. Double-headers is the infamous rort whereby people are paid double time and a half and can, therefore, earn incomes up to $90,000 and more a year.Prior to the start of this dispute, you could be a crane driver and earn $90,000 a year for sitting on the crane 14 hours a week. I am pleased to be able to say to the House that those days are over. They are over because the agreement contains a requirement that there be one man per machine—one man, one machine. That is commonplace in every other industry in Australia, except on the Australian waterfront. So it is the end of a crane driver working 14 hours a week for $90,000. That is no more.One of the other problems was that, because they had twice as many people than they needed to run the operation, a lot of people would say, `I might as well be paid for sitting at home because there is no job for me here to do.' So, instead of having one person per machine, you would have two people per machine and what would the other one do? They used to nick off. That is why they call it the nick off. They go home and still get paid—and, if they were on a double-header, they would be getting paid double time and a half. It is a pretty good deal. The Labor Party said, `We fixed it all.' What a complete nonsense. We have abolished the nick. We have abolished double-headers. We have imposed one man, one machine. That is a revolution on the Australian waterfront.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—They've all nicked off now.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The opposition have all nicked off now, exactly; they cannot help themselves. From the government's perspective, in the reform agenda, I do not mind saying that we did not get absolutely everything we wanted. So what? That's life. You do not always get what you want. But I will tell you that we have the biggest set of reforms now about to be put in place on the Australian waterfront since containerisation started in 1969. As far as the freedom of association provisions are concerned, the union has acknowledged that in the agreement. It is actually in writing in the agreement with Patrick.Secondly, we do have contracting out. Anybody with real experience and understanding of what happens in industrial relations would know that it is the case that contracting out breaks down the position of a monopoly or a closed shop. So legally it is broken and, I think, also technically it is broken in the sense that those people who have been in the MUA who end up in mainte nance will end up in the AMWU anyway, so that is technically a breach of the union shop.Thirdly, I think the changes are significant because the union will never be what it once was. Part of that is because a lot of the older members of the union are going to retire, including the leadership of it, and also because they have now got half the members. They have spent a lot of their stockpile on legal fees and in future they will have half the income coming in off the subscriptions. They will not, therefore, be in a position to exercise the industrial muscle which they have used in the past to maintain, or some times to grab back, their perks.One of the ironies of this dispute is that, whilst the union has been bucking and reluctant to undertake any change, in the end it is going to sign an agreement which is under our legislation—the Workplace Relations Act. Under our law, which they will have to abide by like everybody else—which is a change for the MUA—once you have entered into an agreement, you are not to take industrial action during the life of that agreement. That is another curtailment on this union, which in the past has had the record of having taken on average nine times the level of industrial action compared with the national average, which is one reason why we have had such poor levels of productivity on the Australian waterfront. They are far too often not at work, far too often on the nick, far too often taking strike action. That is much more difficult now for them to do.It has been an incredible achievement and it will go down as one of the significant micro-economic reform achievements of this government. I do not mind saying it has been a bruising, battling, difficult dispute, and that is the way of the MUA. The MUA is the successor union, amongst others, to the painters and dockers—and they are a pretty tough crowd to deal with. You have to be prepared to be pretty tough in dealing with them. We as a government always had an expectation that they would take national industrial action against an incoming coalition government—and we were not the only ones to have that expectation. Therefore, when we came into office we had a national responsi bility to make sure that we were prepared for any dispute that they might want to pull—and we make no apology for that. If you elect a national government, part of their responsibility is to ensure that, if there is an argument, the ports are kept open and business and jobs are not lost as a result.Why would the Labor Party be surprised at that? They faced exactly the same thing when they were in office. They are full of these conspiratorial claims. I thought Pauline Hanson was the only one full of conspiracies. Conspiracies are catching on in the national parliament, the whole front bench of the Labor Party have got conspiracies coming out of their ears. The Leader of the Opposition today said it was basically part of the government's plot to ask the Productivity Commission to give a report on productivity levels on the waterfront—`If you ask them, part of the conspiracy is that they will tell you how bad the waterfront is.' This is pathetic from a leader of an opposition; what a pathetic claim to make. Of course we had a productivity problem on the Australian waterfront. In a sense, you do not need a Productivity Commission to tell you, but it is sensible to get independent, authoritative advice on the state of the problem so that, as you address the problems, you are fixing the things that need to be fixed. Is that a conspiracy? I do not think it is.You talk about conspiracies. Back in 1991 the then Labor government, according to a senior member of the Labor Party then, actually considered a range of options which included using the armed services to man the wharves. They are accusing us of conspiracy! The federal cabinet, when Labor was in office in 1991, were actually having a discussion about bringing on the troops. I have had plenty of letters from people saying, `Why don't you put in the troops?' but this government never had a cabinet discussion saying to the Minister for Defence, `When can you get regiment No. 1 down to the wharves?' That is laughable. And in 1994, when they were trying to sell off ANL, there was a national strike. What did the Labor Party do? They got some advice—what a conspiracy that is. What was the advice they got? The advice they got included cancelling the MUA's awards and agreements.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—So what!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am glad he says, `So what!' It is good that you say that because since these documents were revealed we have had confirmation from Labor frontbenchers that you actually had a subcommittee, exactly the same way that we did, and you considered some of exactly the same issues. Why would we be surprised in the end about that? Because, in the pilots dispute, you cancelled their awards, you brought in foreign workers, you forced people onto individual agreements, you deregistered the union and you brought in the troops—you brought in the air force—to fix a union dispute. What incredible hypocrisy!This document that the Labor Party have brought in today is dated April. A few weeks ago we had a cabinet document dated July. This predates the July document, so there is hardly anything new in it. The interesting thing is that I asked how many questions the Labor Party had asked me on the waterfront up until the date they dropped that document. Do you know how many they had asked through what they say is the greatest betrayal since—Government members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Record all interjections! Yes, it was the greatest dispute since time immemorial, the greatest betrayal, the greatest this, the greatest that. How many questions were there? Six questions. Today I get three questions—three questions in one day. What a bonanza! This is giving me a chance to finish off on a high. Thank you very much. The fact is that there have been discussions about alternative labour supplies in the event of a national strike on the Australian waterfront for as long as anybody can remember. I remember that, when I was first a minister, the then member for Gilmore told me that P&O had a plan to bring in foreign workers. Was this a conspiracy, a secret plan, to break the law? No, it was not. Why wasn't it? Because it was being publicly talked about. In August 1997, it was reported:Richard Hind, the Managing Director of P&O Australia, one of the two major stevedoring firms operating Australian wharves confirmed yesterday a plan to use foreign crane drivers had been drawn up for some time but declined to give details. `It is always an option. We would have to bring in another work force with some expertise.'CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—What a big secret!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—What a big secret and big breach of the law. And the Labor Party is in here today saying this is a conspiracy. You ought to take a redundancy package with the MUA. This is a truly pathetic operation.RH4KERRMr Kerr—And a cover-up.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—And a cover-up as well! This government has had the guts to do something about an issue that for years needed to have something done about it. When Labor was in, in the end they always just caved in. They say, `Oh, we had the same advice but we didn't do anything about it.' That was the problem for 13 years. The fact is that the union ran rings around you. You were a disgrace. The Labor Party were bought off by the MUA, because they had been making donations to the Labor Party for years, so that they could nick off and so people could go on enjoying double-headers. We reject this censure motion. It is one of the most pathetic censure motions ever moved in the national parliament. The shadow minister ought to get up and explain why he has been opposed to reform. We reject it out of hand. (Time expired)15:52:005946Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—We now have the smoking gun. The final piece of the puzzle is in place. We have now got the precise details of everything that has gone on in this whole disgraceful episode over the past 18 months—everything that this government has been involved in, everything that it has had to do with orchestrating the dismissal of 2,000 Australian workers.I ask you to think back a bit and think of all the light and colour there has been in all this dispute. Think of all the things that have occurred. We have had the Dubai episode, the dogs and the batons and the goons on the waterfront and all those things. Just think about the fact that this document that we have revealed today was actually created in April 1997, long before any of the high-profile spectacular events occurred. What this docu ment reveals is that the origins of the events of April 1998 go back at least as far as April 1997. What it shows is that this government got advice, that it approved the interventionist strategy that was contained in that advice and that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) was directly involved in organising this exercise. He wrote to the minister for transport at the time, Mr Sharp—another expert on the nick—and said, `This is approved. The interventionist strategy is approved.'What I ask you to do is to compare what was in that document, the nature of the strategy that was approved, with what actually happened. Take a step back from all of the high-profile events, all of the exciting things that have occurred, all the things that have been great TV and great media coverage, outrageous events though they may be, and compare what happened with what is in the document.Let us have a look at what the Prime Minister approved. He approved a strategy that says, `We will deliberately provoke a massive dispute with the Maritime Union of Australia at a time and on an issue of our choosing. We will create the dispute and we will sublimate the interests of public policy on other issues, such as the sale of a major asset, ANL, to the need to create, to engineer, to manufacture, this dispute.' Then it says, `We will encourage and we will assist the stevedoring company involved to sack its entire work force, not on the basis of their individual characteristics or performance but sack every last man jack of them. We will create and orchestrate the dispute in order that they can do it. We will make sure that the MUA does not realise this is happening. We will lie to them. We will keep them strung along. We will make them think that, "I am Peter Reith, I am the nice guy. Forget about John Sharp. I am the person you can deal with. I am realistic, I am practical," and we will string them along. But we are going to catch them by surprise.'What they did was to create a small team, as they described it very disingenuously, of people including a strategic thinker, a lawyer and an intelligence person. I am not quite sure what that is a reference to but, nonetheless, there is an intelligence person there. This small team would be funded to the tune of $2 million, courtesy of the approval of the Prime Minister, and it would engage in detailed planning and implementation of this strategy. I ask you to think about some of the quotes from this document, which today we have seen the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) deal with so dismissively. I quote:The most likely scenario would involve using an element of the Government's maritime reform agenda, eg ANL, or an event arising out of the application of the Workplace Relations Act, to bring about a national stoppage.To bring about a national stoppage—not to respond to a national stoppage but to bring about, to cause, to engender one. Then:The stevedores would use this opportunity to sack their existing work force and restart their operations with a new non-union work force.Then:It would be preferable for any major dispute to be one for which the Government has planned in accordance with our timetable.And:We need to further develop plans to involve the MUA in a dispute on an issue and at a time of our choosing.It is very straightforward. This government was planning, it was orchestrating, it was organising, a dispute. It was not planning how it might respond to a dispute; it was saying, `How can we create one? We want to create a cataclysmic dispute with the Maritime Union of Australia.' This was the minute of the conspiracy to do it. This document was formally approved within the Prime Minister's office. It was created in his office and he approved it as the basis for a plan to cause that dispute, to create that dispute, in order that 2,000 Australian workers could be sacked.It is very clear from this document that this was all done for political reasons, for political payback and revenge against the Maritime Union. The so-called evolutionary strategy, the alternative to the interventionist strategy, is discussed. Why is it rejected? Because it would not produce results within this parliamentary term. What is that code for? `We won't get any results before an election. We are under pressure from various sections of the business community to show that we are strong, that we are hairy-chested, on this issue; so we are not interested in negotiations, we are not interested in trying to work constructively and productively with the union, port users, shipping companies and the like because that will not give us any outcomes before the next election.' In other words, `We are prepared to create possibly the biggest dispute in recent Australian history, with all of the consequences that that entails, purely in order to ensure that we can go to the next election with a bit of a big bang showing that we have had a hairy chest on the waterfront. So it is all for political reasons. We turn to the next delightful quote, the surprise agenda:A key part of the interventionist strategy is that the MUA should be caught by surprise. To this end it may be quite appropriate to keep the unions wondering whether the government would settle for an evolutionary approach.In other words, deceit. That is what this is: deceit. It is simple, pure deceit—no more and no less. Do you remember the new Minister for Industrial Relations, as he then was, standing up and saying, `I am a reasonable person. I negotiate with everybody, I talk with everybody. I'll sit down and talk with John Coombs and Greg Combet for hours.' Then he complained that they walked out of one of those discussions. They knew what they were dealing with. They had every reason to walk out, because they were dealing with a snake, with someone who was not bona fide, somebody who was there to deliberately deceive them and to ensure that they were not dealing in an honest environment where people could actually put their cards on the table.Think of some of the deceit that has been part of this overall pattern: the doorstop interview at Treasury Place that the minister did on 8 May where he said, `No-one to my knowledge had any knowledge of any plans, nor did anyone have any plans of which we were aware. The answer is no, absolutely not.'He tries to obfuscate over this and suggest that this was a question about the Dubai exercise. It was not. This was in answer to a question, `What did you know about Patrick's plans to sack its entire work force?' Straightforward. That is what the question was. His answer: `Didn't know a thing.' Yet what we see in this document, which he knew of, which his name is on, which the Prime Minister approved, is a quote that says:Patrick's have: `embarked on planning for a major dispute during which they would sack their work force and recommence operations using alternative labour'.What does that tell us? Is there any possible way that those two statements can be reconciled? The answer is no; the minister lied, he lied blatantly, he lied outrageously to the Australian people on 8 May.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The honourable member will withdraw that.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—It is a censure motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am allowed to say that.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—So it is. You are; you are right.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Let us look at the Prime Minister's statements. He is not about getting the MUA: `We've never advocated attacking the union.' Yet this document says that they are planning to bring in a new non-union work force—not a work force where people have the right to choose, as they claim, but a new non-union work force.Then there is the question of money. The minister says on 4 June this year, `Basically the funds that we've expended on this were about obtaining reports, consultancies'—which are an issue in themselves. `Basically they were only about consultancies; no big deal.' Yet he knew—and in fact he had reported to cabinet—that a small team had been created to implement their plan, and the Prime Minister had approved $2 million to fund that small team. That was substantially more than the $1.3 million that they had approved for consultancies. Yet he still tells this parliament, `Basically, the only money we have spent is on reports.' That is another absolute, outrageous lie. We go to 22 October last year: `We are prepared to sit with people and constructively talk. We'll listen to anybody.' Yet the document tells us what was really in his mind, which was: `We're going catch the MUA by surprise.' Again, another lie to this parliament and another lie to the Australian people.Their only defence in all of this—and it comes through time after time in response to every question and in every speech that is made—is that they are in favour of waterfront reform. We hear it ad infinitum—endless, gross exaggeration about how bad things have been and how good they are now. What does that tell you? It tells you that their defence to these accusations is that the end justifies the means. That is their only defence: the end justifies the means.Think back to the events; think back to the cargo that has been held up, to the massive damage that was caused by the dispute, to the damage to the families of those workers as a result of the time they were unemployed, to the damage to the poor workers of P&C Stevedores, who were conned and led to believe they were going to be looked after by the government, Chris Corrigan and the NFF and who have now just been discarded.They do not care about any of that because they say the end justifies the means—and it is all organised by the government. The whole tawdry, outrageous, disgraceful conspiracy is all organised by the government. This is something that Labor is alleged to have considered. His main defence was, `You actually had a committee talking about waterfront reform.' So what? Yes, Labor had a cabinet committee dealing with these issues and, yes, it did receive some form of advice which had some rather hair-raising propositions in it. But was the advice sought with respect to those specific proposals? No. Did the Labor minister say, `I want advice about how to sack thousands of workers?' No. That advice may have been given, but was it sought and was it acted on? No and no.The key point in this whole issue—which I think, unfortunately, many commentators are missing because of the heat and light associated with Dubai, the dogs, the lies and all of those things—is: what was this government actually doing? What have been the actions of this government? What has it been doing? Not just its state of knowledge, not just whether this parliament has been lied to—these are all issues—but what has this govern ment actually been doing? That is the critical issue.The full enormity of this government's actions in this instance has not been properly acknowledged. We have a government that is conspiring to engineer, create and manufacture one of the biggest industrial disputes in Australia's history—not responding to it, not working out how to deal with it but conspiring to bring it on, to create it. To sack 2,000 Australian workers, it is creating an industrial dispute which could have been far greater in proportion and far greater in impact than it actually was, and that impact was substantial as it was. It has developed a strategy, it has funded it, it has prepared it and it has progressed it in secret—with taxpayers' money—and it has lied all the way through to the Australian people about what it is doing.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business is supposed to resolve disputes. He is supposed to prevent disputes. He is supposed to ensure that people can go about their business. Here we have the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business conspiring to cause a dispute—orchestrating a dispute—and not just preparing for battle with a union, knowing that a dispute is going to happen, but actually saying, `We can create this issue as the basis for the dispute and we can cause the timing to be about this time. Here is how we will go about it: we will have a small team that will actually implement all of this.'I do not think that many people have fully realised just how outrageous this proposition actually is. This government is completely beyond the pale. This document is the final piece of the jigsaw in this exercise. It shows we have a sneaky, mendacious, vicious government that is using all of the levers of power that it has been eyeing off for years. It has finally got its hands on them and it is now endeavouring to use all of the levers of power to get its enemies. This is about attacking a union that it has hated for many years. This government has hated the maritime union, and this whole exercise has been about abusing the power that elected government gives you in this country in order to get that union and its members.As I say, I do not believe that people really fully understand how extreme this behaviour actually is. Yes, the dogs, the batons and all of those things are outrageous. Yes, the Dubai exercise was outrageous. But the really outrageous thing in this exercise is that you have a government of Australia that is deliberately conspiring to orchestrate a massive industrial dispute in order to sack 2,000 Australian workers.As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said, this has all the hallmarks of the Nixon White House: the paranoia, the law-breaking, the secrecy, the misuse of power; and it has even got a minister that looks like John Erlichman. It has got the whole lot all in one.RH4KERRMr Kerr—And the cover-up.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—And, as the honourable member for Denison points out, the cover-up. This document reveals that this minister and this Prime Minister are unfit to hold public office. They stand condemned before this parliament for orchestrating, for creating, for manufacturing one of the most extraordinary industrial disputes that this country has seen. They stand condemned for that and they should retreat from public life in this country because they are not fit to hold public office.16:07:005949Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—It is a matter of fact that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) found that he no longer had the support of the voters of Swan he packed his bag and got Wendy Fatin to resign so that he could run down to the seat of Brand. But the seat of Brand adjoins the seat of Fremantle, held by Carmen Lawrence. As a result of this close geographic association, the Leader of the Opposition has caught the Lawrence disease: he has lost his memory. He has amnesia. He has forgotten what he and Bob Hawke did to the pilots. At the time they painted a picture of all these guys on $100,000 a year when 90 per cent of pilots in general aviation around Australia were lucky to get $30,000 a year. But they dealt with the lot of them. He has forgotten what plans his government had to deal with the waterfront, and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) has advised him of that because all their documentation is now down at the court. He has forgotten that his government actually spent—it was not a loan arrangement—$130 million trying to sort out the waterfront and he seems to have forgotten that the 4,000 jobs he said he got rid of all came back as casuals.He has forgotten his unAustralian breach of promises on taxes after the 1993 election. Anybody who can stand up in this place and claim one iota of credibility after those actions in 1993 is a hypocrite of the highest order. He has forgotten that it was his party in government that introduced competition policy and bludgeoned the state Premiers into implementing it. His colleagues run around here day after day as though we invented and implemented it.8I4MARTINMr Martin—What?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Beazley's amnesia. He can't remember that. He has forgotten his and his government's actions when they introduced progressive and massive tariff reductions. Why did they do that? They did it because they did not have the guts to front industrial relations reform up-front, so they put the workers out of work and bludgeoned them into accepting their form of workplace agreements. That was their tactic and they have forgotten. If not, they are lying by their interjection.You reduced the tariffs, you caused all the job losses and you knew what you were up to. He has forgotten that he sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas and spent the money. I think he has even forgotten that he and his government borrowed $75,000 million using the kids of Australia as security and nearly destroyed the Australian economy.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What about the waterfront?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I'll tell you about the waterfront. You have the most selective memory in the country when you come in here and pontificate and carry on. We know what you did. We saw you do it to the pilots, we saw you do it to the workers through tariffs, and you did it deliberately.They say, `What about the waterfront?' Let us get down to the fundamentals of the Patrick dispute. At mass meetings around Australia, hundreds and hundreds of MUA members met and decided—surprise, surprise!—that about two-thirds of their numbers could continue to deliver the services of Patrick Stevedores, and quicker. That is what they decided. You can conclude from that that all the time they knew that their operation was grossly overmanned. What else did they know about that? They knew that in that process they were killing off the jobs of other Australians. They thought that, through their stranglehold on such a sensitive part of the Australian economy, they had a prior right to big dollars and job security at a cost to other people who were unemployed. They thought that they had a right to $90,000 a year and 14 hours of work a week, adding to the cost of working women when they went shopping. That is what they did. They thought that they had a right to gain economic rent from people who were trying to export from this country. The Leader of the Opposition tells us that they fixed the bulk ports. The NFF and the Wheat Board fixed the bulk ports and you never had a hand in it.K26LATHAMMr Latham—This is just gobbledegook.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—It's gobbledegook, is it? All right. Let me remind you of what I just said: the members of the MUA did not get up one after another and say, `We can't manage, this will be a disaster.' They all put their hands up; they all voted that two-thirds of their number could continue all the services that were previously supplied by 100 per cent of their work force and, what is more, they agreed to lift the crane rate. That is what they voted for. You cannot deny that. That is not gobbledegook. You are just demonstrating your embarrassment. Your own MUA members have admitted that they have been conning the Australian community. That has been the outcome.K26LATHAMMr Latham—You're against economic rationalism.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—There we go. The fundamental facts proven by the vote of the MUA workers are that the Australian waterfront was grossly overmanned and that was building through the cost structure not only in waterfront charges but also in freight rates. The highly expensive ships of today were being delayed in the ports and ship owners were putting up their freight rates. What must necessarily arise from that? The first question in those circumstances was: was it appropriate for a government to intervene? The answer must be yes. Those people who were shopping at K Mart and those who were unemployed were relying on the government to address this outrage.The second question in those circumstances was: how might I address this in the known circumstances of the behaviour of the MUA? I am not talking about some mystical supposition; I am talking about hardcore history. Let me give you a simple example of unAustralianism. The Western Australian government let a tender to a new entrant in the Fremantle waterfront. The man had the capacity to unload state ships and they gave him the contract. God almighty—it was about one ship a fortnight! And because he would not guarantee the employment of MUA workers, the MUA closed down Australia. They did not just close down the Port of Fremantle or the Port of Kwinana; they closed down Australia. And you are arguing that a government seeking to redress a wrong on the Australian people should have come out and said, `John Coombs, come to our meetings. We are going to talk about how we are going to change the structure on the waterfront.' I have given you an example of how they operated.Your government had the temerity to say, and I might say it almost in a whisper, `I think we should sell the Australian National Line.' And what was the response of the MUA? They closed down Australia—nothing moved. We have had the member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner) saying that we have just had the worst set of industrial action in the world. It was the worst for the MUA, but ships were being loaded and unloaded every day of that dispute. That was not the case in your time. When you guys tried to do anything on the waterfront other than throw buckets of money at them, they closed Australia down—and you are trying to tell this parliament that a responsible government should not have met in secrecy to decide how they were going to deal with that matter.8I4MARTINMr Martin—So they did meet in secret?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Of course they did, and I am saying that it would be damned stupid if they did not. They had to—and you did when you discussed these matters.8I4MARTINMr Martin—They deny it.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—No, they do not deny it. They have denied one thing. They have denied that they had any direct knowledge of the Dubai arrangements—and what a farce that is on your behalf.8I4MARTINMr Martin—You just said they met in secret.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Of course they met in secret, and the secrecy would have continued if you blokes had not been around stealing cabinet documents.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the two members might desist their dialogue.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You are a mob of thieves.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the honourable member for O'Connor might direct his remarks through the chair.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You stole cabinet documents.8I4MARTINMr Martin—No-one has done that.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—But, anyhow, we have yours in the courts now, and you tell us they are different. When our party gets advice from the bureaucracy, you invariably tell this House that that is our policy. When you get advice from the bureaucracy, you say, `Oh, no, that was only advice from the bureaucracy. That was only an options paper.' What a load of garbage! It is an options paper for the Liberal Party if it is written by a public servant, and it is an options paper for the Labor Party. If it is not, it is policy for you and it is policy for us.But do not bring this garbage in here where you fellows want to rewrite history, as you have on competition policy, on tariffs and on privatisation. You have done all that. You have rewritten history. But you have a problem: everything in this place is a matter of record, and let me remind you that I have not forgotten anything you did in those 13 years. My memory will never be changed on all this. So what did the government do? The government put a strategy in place to ensure the people of Australia were protected from these arrangements. It is said to us that that was a strategy to sack people because they were in a union. No; it was a strategy to replace bludgers with a group of people who would do a bit of work.Why oh why, in the context of Australia, would it ever be that any employer seeking to give people some job training would have to contemplate sending them to another country? Webb Dock proved to us why you had to do it. When you people stopped that process—or, in other words, when you called upon the international unions as you did when you called upon them to refuse to load good Australian freight in America—what did you do? You had pickets at the front of Webb Dock and you had pickets wherever else you could. You abused those people in the most outrageous way when they just wanted to be trained to get a job.8I4MARTINMr Martin—What did you do? You put the dogs in.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Cunningham will remain silent!SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You know why they had dogs there? They had dogs there to protect themselves.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for O'Connor will direct his remarks through the chair.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—They had dogs there to protect themselves from the members of the painters and dockers. Tell me why the minister had to have two guards follow his wife around? Tell me why the federal minister in this process had to have the Federal Police protect him other than that some of your union members would have shot him if they could have got the chance? Why did they have dogs? They had dogs to protect themselves from the sorts of capers that went on. That is a fact, and it is proven by their activities.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Put a poodle in there, not a rottweiler.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—I challenge you to cancel your union membership and go down to the port and try to drive a crane, and see if people do not start chucking rocks through your house window. I challenge you to do it. You know the sort of response you would get, and you know why it was considered necessary to have guards inside the premises—to save the property. That is the reality, and do not give me that sort of garbage that people were not going to get punched up.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the member for O'Connor might direct his remarks to the motion before the chair and ignore the member for Cunningham.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Mr Speaker, you might like to tell me, from your long experience in this place, how difficult it has been for a government to `negotiate' and have an `evolutionary process' with the MUA. You boast of a victory. There have been no victories for the workers in the MUA. There have been no victories for the people in all of this. The only victory has been for John Coombs. He and his union bureaucrats still have jobs. John still has his first-class trip to England for the International Transport Federation meeting which—surprise, surprise—is on at the same time as Wimbledon. Did you ever go, Martin?RH4KERRMr Kerr—John Howard went via the Lords Test.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—And you criticised it, but now you are trying to defend Coombs. Don't give me rubbish! If you want to stand over there and not be called a hypocrite, do not criticise people for things you do yourself. Don't do it. You do it too often. You set out to kill off Colston and you dragged your own people down and you dragged the reputation of this whole parliament down, and your leader was on again the other day talking about some pay rise for politicians. You have done a lot in opposition to destroy the reputation of yourselves and your colleagues and everyone else as individuals, and for what? For a little tiny bit of political gain. You are dreadful people in the way that you behave. (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.16:27:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.84Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D.Andrew, J. N. Andrews, K. J.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J.*Hockey, J. B. Howard, J. W.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ruddock, P. M.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Bevis, A. R. Dondas, N. M.Evans, M. J. Bishop, B. K.Ferguson, L. D. T. Scott, B. C.Holding, A. C. McLachlan, I. M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Privilege595316:31:005953Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, in the light of revelations in the parliament today and the documents that we tabled, would you examine whether a prima facie case exists of a misleading of this parliament by both the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), and whether a reference to the Privileges Committee is warranted?5953Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It is very serious and profound question for any parliament to consider whether a breach of privilege has in any way been perpetrated. I, on the surface, can see no basis for the allegation but do not intend to give a ruling superficially. The matter is a serious one of any order if that question is raised. I will examine the issue and respond further to the House in due course.DT4CREANMr Crean—Can you give us an indication as to when that response will be made?10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As soon as possible; I do not know when.Miscellaneous59545954Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Some members may know that I have been very keen to get the tapestry completed in the Great Hall. Members may therefore be interested to see the original Arthur Boyd design for the tapestry, which does not have the incision for the doors, which at the moment is on display on the first floor of the parliamentary building, not far from the Post Office and adjacent to the Great Hall itself.Committees595459545954Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 4 December 1997, the date of the last schedule, and 1 July 1988. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and will be incorporated in Hansard .The schedule read as follows—THE SPEAKER'S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE REPORTSOn 25 June 1998, the Government presented its response to a schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports tabled in the House of Representatives on 4 December 1997. The Government had earlier in the Parliament affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports presented during the present Parliament within three months of their presentation and to clear, as soon as possible, the backlog of reports arising from previous Parliaments.The Government's commitment follows the undertaking by successive Governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in a timely fashion. In 1978 the Fraser Government implemented a policy of responding in the House by ministerial statement within six months of the tabling of a committee report. In 1983, the Hawke Government reduced this response time to three months but continued the practice of responding by ministerial statement. The Keating Government generally responded by means of a letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the House at the earliest opportunity.The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and Government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 4 December 1997. It also lists reports for which the House has received no Government response. A schedule of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives. The Government's responses to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Members' Interests, the Committee of Privileges, the Publications Committee and the Selection Committee. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes, which are tabled by the Committee. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered.1 July 1998 Description of Report Date Tabled or Published1 Date of Government Response2 Responded in Period Specified3Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (House, Standing)Torres Strait Islanders: a new deal—A report on greater autonomy for Torres Strait Islanders26-08-9723-06-98NoReview of Auditor-General's audit report No 26, 1996-97—Phase II of audit—Community development employment projects scheme: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission23-06-9704-12-97NoReview of Auditor-General's audit reports No 36, 1992-93; No 1, 1993-94 Volume 3, Sections 1.13—1.39; and No 27, 1993-94, Sections 16.19—16.2430-05-9404-12-97No Banking, Finance and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's 1993-94 annual report and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission's 1993-94 annual report25-09-95No response to date4NoTaxing relaxing: Report on the impact of Australia's taxation regime on the tourism industry27-03-95No response to date5No Certain Family Law Issues (Joint, Select)Funding and administration of the Family Court of Australia28-11-9503-03-98No Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform (House, Standing)Planning not Patching—An inquiry into federal road funding24-11-97No response to date6No Corporations and Securities (Joint, Statutory)Company Law Review Bill01-04-98No response required-Managed Investment Bill01-04-98No response required- Electoral Matters (Joint, Standing)Industrial Elections: Report of the inquiry into the role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial elections20-10-97No response to date7NoThe 1996 Federal Election: Report of the inquiry into the conduct of the 1996 Federal Election and matters related thereto16-06-9708-04-98No Employment, Education and Training (House, Standing)Youth employment: A working solution29-09-97No response to date8NoTruancy and exclusion from school12-01-96No response to date9No Environment, Recreation and the Arts (House, Standing)Rethinking the funding of community sporting and recreational facilities: A sporting chance17-11-9730-06-98NoReview of Auditor-General's audit report No 31 of 1995-96—Performance audit—Environmental management of Commonwealth land: Site contamination and pollution prevention24-03-97No response to date10NoManaging Australia's World Heritage04-11-9608-04-98NoWorking with the environment: Opportunities for job growth14-11-94No response to date11NoCommonwealth environmental impact assessment processes27-06-94No response to date12No Family and Community Affairs (House, Standing)What price competition? Report on the competitive tendering of welfare service delivery29-06-98Period has not expired13 -Mens' Health, summary report01-12-97No response to date14NoHealth on Line: A report on health information management and telemedicine24-11-97No response to date14NoConcessions—who benefits? Report on concession card availability and eligibility for concessions17-11-97No response to date15No Financial Institutions and Public Administration (House, Standing)Review of the National Competition Council annual report for 1996-9729-06-98Period has not expired13-Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-9722-06-98Period has not expired13-Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-97—Interim Report23-03-98No response to date16NoReview of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 1996-9709-03-98No response to dateNoReport of the inquiry into ANAO audit report No 6 1996-97 on Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort29-09-9726-05-98No Reviews of the 1995-96 annual reports of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian Securities Commission and the Insurance and Superannuation Commission29-09-97No response to date4NoReview of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 1995-96 annual report23-06-9703-03-98NoCultivating Competition: Inquiry into aspects of the national competition policy reform package23-06-9712-05-9817No Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing)Australia's trade relationship with India29-06-98Period has not expired13-Improving but : Australia's regional dialogue on human rights29-06-98Period has not expired13-The Asian Crisis: Report on a seminar on the Asian currency crisis and its effect on Australia, 19 March 199825-05-98No response required-Funding Australia's Defence08-05-9818Period has not expired13-Australian and ASEAN: Managing Change06-04-98Period has not expired13-Defence Subcommittee visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores Defence properties23-03-98No response to dateNoSharpening the focus: Report on a seminar on the Simons Committee Report20-10-9708-04-98NoFrom empire to partnership: Report on a seminar on the Commonwealth of Nations20-10-9723-06-98NoThe Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman—Report on Public Seminars 20 and 25 September 199618-03-9723-06-98NoPapua New Guinea Update: Report on proceedings of a seminar, 11 and 12 November 96, Canberra24-02-9728-05-98No Industry, Science and Technology (House, Standing)A sea of indifference: Australian industry participation in the North West Shelf project30-03-98No response to dateNo Legal and Constitutional Affairs (House, Standing)To have and to hold: Strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships22-06-98Period has not expired13-Don't stop the music: A report of the inquiry into copyright, music and small business01-06-98Period has not expired13-Saving our census and preserving our history25-05-98Period has not expired13- Aspects of section 44 of the Australian Constitution25-08-9704-12-97NoThe third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution30-11-95No response to date4NoIn Confidence: the protection of confidential personal and commercial information held by the Commonwealth26-06-95No response to date19No Long Term Strategies (House, Standing)Australia's population carrying capacity—one nation—two ecologies05-12-94No response to date20No MigrationDeportation of non-citizen criminals29-06-98Period has not expired13-Working holiday makers: More than tourists01-09-97No response to date21NoAustralia's visa system for visitors27-01-96No response to date22No National Capital and External Territories (Joint, Standing)A right to protest19-06-9725-03-9823No National Crime Authority (Joint, Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority06-04-98Period has not expired13-Examination of the annual report for 1996-97 of the National Crime Authority09-03-98No response required- Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint, Statutory)Examination of 1996-97 annual reports in fulfilment of the Committee's duties pursuant to s.206(c) of the Native Title Act 199324-06-98Period has not expired13-The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 199801-06-98Period has not expired13- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 198402-04-98Period has not expired13-Native Title Amendment Bill 199727-10-97No response to date24No Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs (House, Standing)Adjusting to Agricultural Trade Reform: Australia no longer down under22-06-98Period has not expired13-Developments in New Zealand Agriculture—Report of a visit to New Zealand, 16-19 June 199701-12-97No response to date25NoManaging Commonwealth Fisheries: The last frontier23-06-97No response to date25No Procedure (House, Standing) Description of ReportDate Tabled or Publishing1Date of Government Response2Responded in Period Specified3Ten years on: A review of the House of Representatives committee system01-06-98Period has not expired13-Provision for Members to make short speeches in the Main Committee20-10-9704-12-9726Yes Treaties (Joint, Standing)Fourteenth Report—Multilateral Agreement on Investment—Interim Report01-06-98Period has not expired13-Thirteenth Report06-04-98No response required-Twelfth Report—Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty01-12-97No response to date21NoEleventh Report24-11-97No response to date27NoTenth Report20-10-97No response required-Ninth Report—Amendments to the Bonn Convention01-09-9727-05-98NoEighth Report23-06-97No response to date27NoSeventh Report—Australia's withdrawal from UNIDO and Treaties tabled on 11 February 199724-03-9714-05-98NoThird Report—Two International Agreements on Tuna18-11-9626-05-98NoNotes:1. The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.2. If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate , the source is shown in an endnote.3. The time specified is three months from the date of tabling. In its paper presented to the House on 25 June 1998 (referred to hereafter as the 25 June 1998 paper) the Government indicated that a `response is expected to be tabled in the near future'. In the 25 June 1998 paper, the Government indicated that a `response will be tabled at the earliest possible date'. The 25 June 1998 paper said that the `Government response is being considered, and will be tabled when this process is complete'.7. `The report's recommendations are currently being considered. The Government response is expected to be tabled in the near future.' (25 June 1998 paper)8. The 25 June 1998 paper indicated that a `response is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings'.9. `A number of the report's recommendations require further consultation with various Commonwealth agencies prior to the response being finalised. The Government response is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings.' (25 June 1998 paper)10. In the 25 June 1998 paper, the Government indicated that it `is finalising its response and intends to table it in the 1998 spring sittings'. 11. `The Government has addressed the Committee's recommendations through the Natural Heritage Trust, Green Corps and Work for the Dole scheme. The Government does not intend to respond further.' (25 June 1998 paper)12. `The Government is considering options for implementing the COAG Heads of Agreement on Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment, which was agreed to in principle by Heads of Government in November 1997. Proposals for reform of environment protection legislation being pursued by the Environment Minister aim to implement the COAG Agreement. The proposed reforms are expected to address many of the matters in the Committee's report. The Government will respond to the report in that context.' (25 June 1998 paper)13. The three month period had not expired as at 1 July 1998.14. The Government indicated in its paper of 25 June 1998 that a `response is expected to be tabled before the end of the 1998 winter sittings'.15. In the 25 June 1998 paper, the Government said that a `response is being finalised and is expected to be tabled early in the 1998 spring sittings'.16. A response to this report is required when a response to the committee's report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-97, tabled on 22 June 1998, is responded to.17. This date is the date of the original Government response. A revised Government response was tabled on 26 May 1998.18. This is the date the report was presented to the Speaker and, by resolution of the House, published when the House or Houses were not sitting. It was tabled in the House of Representatives on 12 May 1998.19. `The report is being reviewed to take into account a number of Government decisions made since it was released. The report raises complex issues that require careful consideration in the development of a response.' (25 June 1998 paper)20. In its 25 June 1998 paper, the Government indicated that a `response is currently being prepared and is expected to be tabled when relevant consultations have been completed'.21. The Government indicated in its paper of 25 June 1998 that a `response will be tabled as soon as the relevant consultations are completed'.22. The Government stated in its paper of 25 June 1998 that it `is currently considering its response which will be tabled in the near future'.23. This is the date of the initial response. A further response was tabled on 12 May 1998.24. `The Committee's recommendations were addressed by debate and Government Amendments to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997. The Government does not intend to table a separate response to this report.' (25 June 1998 paper)25. `These reports will be addressed in a single Government response which will be tabled during the 1998 spring sittings'. (25 June 1998 paper)26. Sessional orders to implement the recommendations of this report were agreed to on 4 December 1997.27. In its paper of 25 June 1998, the Government stated that a `response is in preparation and is expected to be tabled in the 1998 spring sittings'.Business596016:33:005960Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: in the basic course of events, we will adjourn tonight at 5.30 after the MPI, and there will be no adjournment debate. We will sit tomorrow at 9.30 in the morning to deal with the native title matters.We have yet to come to an agreement with the other side. I would normally expect a couple of speakers a side. That would be the normal, but we will have a discussion about that. I was hoping also tomorrow to deal with the digital TV amendments, but I have just to take some advice about when they will actually be available. So I will try to get back to members before the conclusion.QI4PRICEMr Price—It will be one a side for that!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—There will be one a side for that. As I said, I will try to get back to members before the conclusion.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Honourable members on the other side have a very short memory. This is a very generous offer; this would be a very generous offer compared with past practice of Labor administrations.The other point, though, to make seriously is that the Senate is intending to sit next week, and that raises the prospect that there will be amendments to legislation and, therefore, a necessity for the House of Representatives to sit again. As to when we would sit, at this stage I am not in a position to inform members. It is a function of the scheduling in the Senate.I believe that members should be considering having as much flexibility in their timetables at the end of next week or even the following Monday as is possible. The government, of course, is subject to Independents, minorities and a difficult to deal with Labor Party in the Senate. Under those circumstances, this is the best advice that I can give members at this point in time. As I say, as further information becomes available, I will make it available.Documents59615961Reith, 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—Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for period 1 July to 31 December 1997.Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs—Australia's young people: Towards independence—A report on youth affairs, June 1998.Family and Community Affairs—Standing Committee—Report, October 1997—Health on line: Health information management and telemedicine— Government response, July 1998.Report, November 1997—Mens' health—Summary report of a seminar—Government response.Law Reform Commission Act—Australian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 85—Australia's federal record: A review of Archives Act 1983. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Request for the Federal Parliament to pass a bill removing the United Nations flag and its Treaty jurisdiction from Australia from the member for Dawson—1 petitionerOpposition to the replacement of a parallel runway at Brisbane Airport and request for flight paths for the planned runway to be released forthwith from the member for Griffith—1360 petitionersOpposition to the replacement of a parallel runway at Brisbane Airport and request for flight paths for the planned runway to be released forthwith from the member for Brisbane—198 petitionersMembers of Cranbourne Secondary College expressing a sincere apology to the `stolen generation' from the member for Flinders—544 petitionersRequest for high priority funding and policy support for a quality public education system from the member for Adelaide—53 petitionersMiscellaneous5961Miscellaneous5961Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That standing order 48A, adjournment and next meeting and standing order 103, new business be suspended for this sitting.Special Adjournment5961Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House at its rising adjourn until Monday, 10 August 1998, at 12.30 p.m., unless otherwise called together by the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, by the Deputy Speaker.Leave of Absence5961Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.Ministerial Statements5961596116:36:005961Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—Mr Speaker, this is a statement in which you will have considerable personal interest. It gives me great pleasure today to table the report of the Constitutional Convention held in February this year. The convention was a unique moment in Australian history. Over the two weeks of the convention 152 Australians came together to discuss the future of our country. All had Australia's best interests at heart. All were concerned to progress the debate on whether or not we should become a republic.The report includes comments by the Chairman of the convention, the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, and the Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Lalor, Barry Jones, who both take an opportunity in the report to reflect on the contribution of those who participated and on the emotion of the occasion. Both comment that the convention demonstrated our inherent national unity despite the wide range of views expressed. This is a view with which I wholeheartedly agree.The experience of the convention gave me a great deal of confidence in the capacity of the Australian people to play an active part in the evolution of our democratic institutions. The debate was spirited but for the most part conducted with respect and goodwill. I have great confidence that the forthcoming referendum will be held in an environment of healthy and constructive debate.This full record of the events of the fortnight of the convention will provide an invaluable resource for anyone interested in debate about our system of government. The report is available on the convention web site. Copies will be sent to municipal and university libraries and will be available for purchase at government bookshops. All the convention delegates will receive a copy.At the time of the convention, people all over the country gave more than a passing thought to our constitution and what change might mean. While the debates were widely reported in the media at the time, it is well worth casting an eye back over the transcripts in volumes 3 and 4 of the report. The words on paper can still evoke the passion and commitment that delegates brought to their arguments for and against change.Clearly, the next steps are important. In line with a resolution of the Constitutional Convention, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has written to the state Premiers, the territory Chief Ministers, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) to seek their assistance in developing the referendum proposal. The referendum will be our opportunity to make a choice between the model supported at the convention and the system we currently have. I am sure there will be further robust public debate as the time to cast a vote draws nearer.16:40:005962Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave—I join the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) in welcoming the report of the Constitutional Convention on behalf of the opposition. The convention was a great display of the nation we are and the nation we hope to become. Through the diversity and commitment of the delegates attending, the convention illustrated the strength of Australia's multicultural achievement, the interest of young people in our constitutional future, and the needs and concerns of indigenous Australians.The general public's interest in the convention emphasised the necessity to address the questions of who we are and the type of constitutional change needed to reflect the Australian situation at the end of the second millennium. Central to the proposition, of course, is the question of whether Australia becomes a republic and the form that republic takes.There is a need for leadership in this debate. Anyone who is familiar with Australian constitutional history is familiar with the fact that, unless political leadership is given across a wide spectrum, Australians are reluctant to change their constitution. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has been reluctant to take a lead with this agenda but we did end up with a Constitutional Convention, albeit with only half of its members elected. The Prime Minister should be congratulated for at least that much commitment to Australia's constitutional future.The Constitutional Convention gave us direction on the question of constitutional change. It has clearly backed a model for constitutional change. It is up to us to respond to the direction given by the convention. The Labor Party for some time has been committed to the ideal of an Australian republic. We support the model chosen by the convention and have committed ourselves to introducing the necessary legislation, followed by a referendum to put that model to the Australian people. It is the Australian people who, in the end, will decide if we become a republic and what form it takes. But it is our duty to give Australians this chance to decide and at the earliest time possible.The Labor Party has stated its support for the outcome of the convention and welcomes the report of the convention. We have illustrated our commitment to the debate and have fully participated in it. We welcome the Attorney-General's confirmation that the coalition, if in government, will introduce the referendum proposal, but it should be sooner rather than later and clear leadership needs to be given on the question which will be put to the Australian people in that referendum. The Australian people deserve a choice and they deserve to be informed of the positions of the major political parties.We urge the Prime Minister to commit his party to support the Constitutional Convention's proposed model. History has shown that ambivalence on behalf of the government of the day on these questions of constitutional change is equivalent to a negative stance. The convention has demonstrated the public's support for change and it is certain that the Australian Labor Party, if given the opportunity, will not take a backward step in supporting the decision of the Australian people to make that change.Matters of Public Importance5963596310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and another from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr Andrews) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. As required by standing order 107, I have selected the matter which in my opinion is the most urgent and the most important, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Menzies, namely:The need for newly emerging registered political groups such as Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party to behave in a responsible manner by explaining their corporate structure, by avoiding the use of overseas tax havens and by not being of a basically undemocratic nature.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—16:44:005963Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Over past days and weeks and months the One Nation Party of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has projected itself throughout this land as a new, democratic grassroots force in Australian politics. It has represented itself from one coast to the other, from north to south, as the saviour of the people, as a party that will enable ordinary Australians to have a say in their future.From the revelations that have come out over the past few days and weeks from inside the One Party Nation itself, we can see that this is a gross misrepresentation and that the party is nothing but a sham. As the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) pointed out today, even when policies are released by the One Nation Party, those policies are based on incorrect and unfactual statements which in a sense are saying to the Australian people, `Believe one set of things; do not look too much into the detail.'Leaving aside the fact that the policies espoused by this party will create not one nation but two, leaving aside that these policies seem to be motivated by an intolerance of some sections of the Australian community, leaving aside that, if allowed to govern with these policies, it would wreak economic havoc on this country and the many ordinary Australians who have rushed to support One Nation—leaving aside all of these very important matters, there is one issue that goes to the heart of One Nation at the present time, and that issue is this: who controls this political party? How is it funded? Or has it become the captive of one or two individuals for their own selfish financial and personal motives?These are questions which ordinary Australians deserve to have answered for them, and they deserve to have answered for them here and now today. Because the questions have been addressed in this place over the last few days and the last few weeks, and there is essentially one person who can answer these questions. They cannot be answered, for example, by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) or by any other Independent member or by a member of the Labor Party. Indeed, they cannot be answered on this side of the chamber. There is one indisputable, unavoidable fact about this matter, that is, one person and one person only can answer these questions, and they deserve to be answered.This week a One Nation insider revealed that One Nation is not what many decent and ordinary Australians think it is. As we have read in the media over the last few weeks, Barbara Hazelton was a confidante, a friend and a personal secretary of the member for Oxley, yet she is only the latest in a long line of supporters and candidates of One Nation to walk away from this movement or, in many other cases, to be pushed out for failing to toe the line in the increasingly autocratic way in which it is done. In the Herald-Sun yesterday under the heading `Betrayal' pictures appeared of a few of those who have been disenchanted by One Nation or those who have been sacked. Barbara Hazelton, a confidante of the member for Oxley, resigned; Morrie Marsden, who has things to say about the member, was sacked; Bruce Whiteside, who started a supporters group, has been banished, told that he was no longer wanted, yet he was one of these people supporting the member for Oxley; David Thomas was sacked; even the biographer, Helen Dodd, was sacked and told to get out, presumably because something that she wanted to say did not fit into the scheme of those who are controlling One Nation. That is the central issue. And we all know about Mr Pasquarelli.One Nation is being exposed increasingly around this nation as something of a puppet show, a particularly violent and undesirable episode of Punch and Judy. Let us remember that Mrs Hazelton is not an operative of the Liberal Party or the Labor Party or the National Party; Mrs Hazelton was a close confidante and personal friend of the member for Oxley.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—She used to work for some of your mates.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—This is not someone, as the member at the table, the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), knows, who started out taking a view that she is opposed to what One Nation stands for. I presume by the comments and the interjection made by the honourable member at the table that he is not defending the policies of One Nation either.Let us hear what Mrs Hazelton herself said in this week's Australian. These words ought to be heard not just by all honourable members in this chamber and in the other place but also by all decent ordinary Australians. She said this:What needs to be exposed is David Oldfield's One Nation. I dislike using harsh language about people—both to avoid seeming vengeful and because most people deserve the benefit of the doubt. But the danger facing One Nation is too serious to mince words. Oldfield is a manipulative, hypnotic, hugely narcissistic individual who has taken almost complete control of Pauline's life whether she realises it or not.We have seen examples of that. Who can forget the memorable episode on television on the weekend where you had not simply the member for Oxley answering questions but also Mr Oldfield sitting beside her, crossing over and saying, `No, this is what we really think. Let us get it right.'Could you imagine the situation in this country if the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister or any minister or shadow minister—or any of us for that matter—went to a press conference and had a staff member sitting beside us saying, `No, that is the way in which you answer the question'? What would the media say if the Prime Minister of this country went to a media conference with his senior adviser and the answers were given not by the Prime Minister but by the senior adviser? What would we say about that? Yet that is precisely what happened.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—A ventriloquist.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—A ventriloquist; I fully accept that interjection. We saw in yesterday's media a press conference held in a highly manipulated fashion called at 1.30 in the afternoon. Everybody around here knows that there is question time at 2 o'clock and that the ladies and gentlemen of the media have to cover question time and that members themselves are expected to go to question time. We had a 15- or 20-minute speech allowing little time for any questioning about the policies that had been put forward.But that was not the end of it. The honourable member for Oxley said to the ladies and gentlemen of the media—and I wonder what treatment we would get if any of us did this—`I am not going to answer questions that may be of some public importance that are taxing the minds of Australians at the present time. I am simply not going to answer any questions that have been raised about the corporate structure, the financing or any other arrangements so far as One Nation is concerned. Do not bother asking me about that. In fact, I will get angry if you ask me some questions which are legitimate questions about the democratic or otherwise nature of the party which bears my name.' These are examples showing that what Mrs Hazelton said in the Australian this week was true.Barbara Hazelton says that there is widespread concern in One Nation about this manipulation of Pauline Hanson by David Oldfield, her adviser, and by the National Director of One Nation, David Ettridge. It would be easy to say in these circumstances that Mrs Hazelton is somebody who is just disaffected. She has left and we could simply say that this is what you would expect her to say in these circumstances. The member for Oxley might say, `It is sour grapes. She has left me. We have fallen out. You do not have to take any notice of Mrs Hazelton at all.'But let us go to the actual charges that Mrs Hazelton makes. You cannot simply dismiss what this woman has said, having been a confidante of the member for Oxley and having been one of the key people in the One Nation Party, without directly answering the allegations and the charges that she has made. Unless those allegations and charges in their specific detail are answered, then those questions remain unanswered; they remain questions which ought to burn large in the minds of Australians.Mrs Hazelton charges that Pauline Hanson has so little control of One Nation that she is unable to obtain a membership list from David Ettridge. Imagine the Prime Minister of Australia not being able to obtain a membership list of the Liberal Party. Imagine the Deputy Prime Minister not being able to obtain a membership list of the National Party. Imagine Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, not being able to obtain a membership list of the National Party. Sometimes they fall off trucks and even we find them.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—It will be a bit hard to get a list for the National Party.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—Even in your case sometimes they fall off trucks and we get them. But membership lists exist.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—How do you get into the 500 Club?HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWS—Even those membership lists, because people are proud to be members of the 500 Club, they really are. And more and more are joining, so don't worry. Those membership lists are available.Imagine if it were said that the leader of a political party, even a member in a particular area, could not obtain a membership list. We even know that branches cannot speak to each other within One Nation. She charges that hundreds of people have contacted One Nation complaining about mismanagement by the head office in Manly. She gave an example of people who have joined their so-called 500 Club and have not received receipts some months later. She charges that Pauline Hanson has no control over the endorsement of candidates. She recounts how two South Australian One Nation candidates came all the way from South Australia to Canberra to seek assurance that they would not be disendorsed. Ms Hanson assured them that they would not be disendorsed; and less than two hours later they had been, by Mr Ettridge. Who has control? Mrs Hazelton charges that there is widespread concern among One Nation members about the quality of One Nation candidates for the federal election. She says the Queensland state director and others wanted to declare all positions vacant, readvertise and start again. One candidate, for example, sent a drawing of how Jesus looked when he appeared to him in 1969. She says this is not atypical of some of the people involved with this party. When Mrs Hazelton approached Ettridge to complain about this lack of quality of candidates, she received the comment, `Don't discourage them. We need the $250 registration fee from each one of them.'She further charges that David Oldfield treats ordinary One Nation members with total contempt. He is dismissive of their policy ideas and, Mrs Hazelton says, he `can barely conceal his revulsion for the type of people who make up One Nation'. This is Mr Oldfield, the so-called adviser. She concluded her article saying:It is painful to write these words and it is one of the saddest days of my life but people need to know that One Nation has been hijacked and that people are being hoodwinked if they think Hanson is in control.People are being hoodwinked if they think that the member for Oxley is in control. These revelations have lifted the lid on the paranoid little secret society that is One Nation—David Oldfield's and David Ettridge's One Nation.The assassination video that we would like to forget but remember from late last year in which the member for Oxley was recording her thoughts for the Australian people in the event that she was assassinated was the work of Mr Oldfield. It is something that you would associate with some wacky cult, not a democratic political party in Australia. But a democratic political party is not what it is. In this party, supposedly representing the grassroots of Australian society, branches of the party are forbidden to communicate with each other. David Ettridge `guards the membership list with his life', according to Mrs Hazelton, and uses expressions constantly such as, `He's not our friend.' This is truly paranoid stuff.There is an issue of the funding which has been raised by my honourable colleague, the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott)—the $500,000 paid by way of public funding for the Queensland election. Where has it gone? Who controls it? Can it simply be spent by the directors of One Nation Limited? Because One Nation is not structured like a normal political party; it is set up as a corporation with three directors: Mrs Hanson, Mr Ettridge and Mr Oldfield. All the other members of the party, unlike in any other political parties, are only affiliate members with no rights at all.As I said, we know that last week the biographer, Mrs Dodd, was escorted away by security guards on the orders of David Oldfield. She said:What we are seeing is a power play in One Nation. Anyone who queries or questions any aspect of administration or the running of One Nation is told by Pauline's minders that it is none of their business. I had been warned by David Oldfield the previous week not to investigate the circumstance around a disendorsed candidate, as it was none of my business. I replied that, as an author, I must be free to talk to any person that I choose to, and probably David didn't like my stand.If time allowed I could go on for another 15 or 20 minutes because the material on the record and the questions that are unanswered remain there. As I said, they can only be answered by one person.We have Mr Oldfield talking about the honourable member for Oxley as `the product', and we have no doubt that when that product passes her use-by date she will be discarded. What we are looking at here is a sham. Ordinary Australians, people who are looking for answers in the problem times that we have in Australia, are being sadly deceived by One Nation. The truth is that One Nation is a sham and we ought to have an explanation from the member herself as to why these questions have not been answered. (Time expired)16:59:005966Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I, unlike some on the other side of the House, come to this debate with clean hands. I say that because, unlike those on the other side of the House, when I go to the ballot in the next federal election in the federal seat of Batman I will not be getting One Nation preferences. Let us have a real debate—a debate about the real issues before the House today.I regard it as the height of hypocrisy for the coalition government to point the finger at the structure of the One Nation Party when this week they voted against proposals to force full disclosure of donations to political parties. Let us not just have a debate about the corporate structure of One Nation; let us also have a debate about full disclosure of donations to all political parties. I think it is about time that the Australian public was told the real story. The real story about One Nation is not about One Nation alone; the real story about One Nation is its fellow travellers—the fellow travellers on the other side of the House who have acted hand in glove to put repressive and unAustralian policies in place over the last 29 months. They have no conscience.I think it is about time that we had a real debate; not just about the One Nation Party, but about the failure of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the frontbench of the coalition government to lead. Let us have a real debate about the dog whistle campaign that has always been conducted by the Prime Minister. The campaign has not just been conducted since he occupied the chair opposite me this afternoon—the Prime Minister's chair—but on every occasion on which he has occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition. He has conducted a dog whistle campaign of whispers and innuendo; a campaign not all that different from the policies of One Nation. What we want is a bit of honesty.As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister is responsible for allowing xenophobes to have the political space that they have had over the last 29 months. It is the Prime Minister who is responsible and no-one else. The Prime Minister is expected to lead the other side of the House, but he has allowed the One Nation Party of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) and her xenophobe supporters to grow and grow and to occupy political space in the most decent country in the world.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it will be necessary, in the course of this debate, for you to rule whether the present speaker is speaking for or against the motion. Could you tell me which is which?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! There is no point of order. There is no motion. This is a discussion.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As I said, I believe that, unfortunately, the dog whistle campaign conducted by the Prime Minister and the One Nation political party has brought the most decent nation in the world to the brink of national tragedy. I am talking about the fact that what is at stake in Australia at the moment is all our traditions—those wonderful traditions that historically all Australians have been delighted to be associated with. I am talking about such traditions as the sense of tolerance, the sense of fairness and the sense of a fair go.The problem is that, over the last 29 months, all those wonderful Australian traditions have frayed at the edge. They have not frayed at the edge because of the actions of One Nation alone; they have frayed because of the failure of the Prime Minister of Australia to stand up and be counted. The Prime Minister has failed to take up the debate. The debate is not just about organisational structures and the question of the accountability of the One Nation Party with respect to its funds. More importantly, the debate is about what the Australian nation expects at the moment: policies and solutions to the problems that confront Australia. This debate ought to be about the failure of leadership. This debate ought to be about the fact that, in essence, One Nation is in truck with the Prime Minister on all the issues that One Nation seeks to associate itself with at this particular point in time.One Nation has had a bit part in the debate and divisiveness that now confronts Australia, the greatest nation in the world. But so has the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should have led. He should have stood up the first time the One Nation Party reared its ugly unAustralian head and basically said, `Let's have a debate.' The problem lies with the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister talked about free speech after the last election, he was really saying, with a wink and a nod, `Free speech to me means hatred, division and prejudice.' That is what free speech means to the Prime Minister. He failed to stand up 29 months ago and say to the Australian public, `Yes, we'll have a debate, but it is going to be a debate about policies and options to try to bring a sense of security back to the Australian community.'In case the government has forgotten about that dog whistle campaign, I will go back through the history of the Prime Minister. The dog whistle campaign did not start when he occupied the `oval office' in Parliament House. The dog whistle campaign really started the first time the now Prime Minister occupied the chair of the Leader of the Opposition. It started when he was elected as Leader of the Opposition. He brought to Australian political fairness a dog whistle campaign that is built on hate, division and prejudice. If anyone has any doubt about that, I would remind the House that the comments by the One Nation political party—I will give an example of these comments—go to the comments by the Prime Minister in the late 1980s about his opposition to Asianisation in Australia. Have those opposite forgotten those comments? We all know about them. Those opposite ought to hang their heads in shame. That is what the dog whistle campaign on politics is about. The Prime Minister walked away from responsibility by making his unAustralian comments.OJ4TAYLORMr Taylor—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I do not often agree with the member for Kalgoorlie, but I draw your attention to the standing orders on relevance. I think that the member opposite is getting right away from the subject at the moment. He is using the opportunity to bag the Prime Minister. That is not what this debate is about. I ask you to bring him back to the point.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Groom. The terms of the discussion are very specific. I would encourage the member for Batman to concentrate on the terms of the discussion.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I am, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about a sense of democracy and a fair go in Australia. The problem with the coalition is that people in glass houses ought not throw stones.Today's debate is about Australia. The truth is that we all know that, throughout his political career, the Prime Minister has blown so hard on the dog whistle that he is blue in the face. He pretended that he stood for some values whilst at the same time secretly trying to create an environment out there for the values and the policies of hate identified with One Nation to get their ugly heads rearing in Australia.HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no reference to the Prime Minister or any other party in the matter for discussion that has been put forward.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Do you want a discussion or do you want to keep your head in the sand?3V5EVANSMr Richard Evans—Put your bum on a bike, Leo.HK5ANDREWSMr Andrews—The honourable member speaking now is simply avoiding your ruling on the point of order that was raised. He is nowhere near the topic and he has made no attempt to come to the topic.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Menzies. I would again encourage the honourable member for Batman to stay within the gambit of the discussion.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: you might ask Mr Foul Mouth over there to withdraw the remarks he made.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I must say that I am not certain what he said.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—The member for Cowan made some remarks that everybody on this side heard.3V5EVANSMr Richard Evans—Mr Deputy Speaker, I used the phrase `put your bum on a bike'. If that offends the member for Watson, I withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The debate really is about a sense of leadership, and politicians and political parties behaving in a responsible manner. That is what the debate is about. The problem for the coalition is that it wants to sit over there in a very hypocritical way and point the finger at One Nation alone. I am suggesting that they are fellow travellers. It is the dog whistle campaign pursued by the Prime Minister over many years, both in opposition and in government, that has created the environment for One Nation and its fellow travellers to rear their ugly heads.If you have got any doubts about that, let us go through the voting records of the Prime Minister and the member for Oxley. Let us go to the question of workplace relations. Working people out there who put their heads down and do a decent day's work will as at 1 July have their hard-won basic working conditions ripped away from them because of the decisive action taken by the Prime Minister together with the member for Oxley.2K6BROUGHMr Brough—Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order and it goes to relevance again. This is the third time we have asked you to draw his attention back to the question. There is nothing in this matter of public importance to do with workplace relations or anything else. It is to do with the emergence of a new registered political party, being the Pauline Hanson One Nation Party. It has nothing to do with anything that the member for Batman has been drawing his attention to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. I certainly uphold his point of order. I urge the honourable member for Batman to speak with some relevance to the question under discussion.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—I appreciate the position adopted by the member for Longman because he, unlike the Prime Minister, stood up very early and made the very public statement that he would put One Nation last; that he would sooner not be in this House than be elected on the basis of One Nation preferences. I understand his sensitivity and the position he adopts with respect to these fundamental issues.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Batman is not addressing the matter of public importance before the House. He is talking about political preferences. The matter before the House is about the structure and democratic processes within Pauline Hanson's One Nation. I ask you to draw him back to the topic. If he has not got anything relevant to say, then he should sit down.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for North Sydney.(Quorum formed)LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As I have said, this debate is really about leadership. It is about politicians and political parties operating in a responsible manner. I think it also goes to the fundamentals of democracy in Australia and whether or not you conduct yourself in an undemocratic way. I must say, in the context of the debate about One Nation, I believe that the Prime Minister, through his dog whistle campaign, conducted himself in a very undemocratic way in the lead-up to the last election. I can remember watching on television the Prime Minister being led by Helen Sham-Ho as he visited the Chinese community.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was looking forward to the member for Batman actually upholding your directive. I simply draw your attention to the fact that he has not used his contribution today to account for the way his side feels about matters such as probity, which is the matter before the House at the moment.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Moreton. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Batman, who will speak about the content of the discussion.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—We know all about probity, a sense of decency and upholding the sense of democracy in Australia. The problem is that there are fellow travellers on the other side of the House who want to point the finger at One Nation whilst they seek to hide behind the skirts of the member for Oxley. That is the truth of the matter and the member for Moreton knows it. He does not want to be elected on One Nation preferences. His problem is that his Prime Minister, through his dog whistle campaign, basically wants to associate himself with the member for Oxley.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to be repetitive, but the member for Batman has continued to ignore your instructions.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—Before I was so rudely interrupted by the member for Moreton, the truth of the matter is that the political parties—(Time expired)17:15:005970Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—Over the past fortnight, questions have been raised in this House about the real nature of One Nation. Is it a party or is it a business? Is it a democracy or is it a dictatorship? Is it really an unstable political menage a trois linking the two Davids, D1 and D2, with an antipodean version of Eva Peron? One of the key questions is the fate of the $500,000 worth of taxpayers' money to which it has always been assumed One Nation is entitled in the wake of the Queensland election result. To receive public funding, a party must be registered under the relevant act.The Queensland Electoral Act provides `that the application for registration must be made to the Commission in a form approved by the Commission for the purposes of this section and must if the application for a party that is not a Queensland parliamentary party'—and I should point out that One Nation had no members of parliament when this application was lodged—`set out the names and addresses of 500 members of the party who are electors'. I stress that to receive public funding a party needs 500 members.I turn now to the constitution of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. This is not One Nation Ltd, which has three directors and just five members, but the unincorporated association registered under the Queensland act, about which I tabled information in parliament earlier this week. This unincorporated association has three classes of membership: it has management committee members, it has committee members and it has affiliate members who, I submit, are not really members at all because the management committee has complete and total control over this party. I quote from its constitution:Any AGM, Special Meeting or General Meeting may be attended by the members of the Management Committee on behalf of the Ordinary Members and any Ordinary Member—wait for it, Mr Deputy Speaker—who has given 7 days notice in writing of their intention to attend the meeting.You have got to give seven days notice to attend a meeting of One Nation. It also says:Management Committee Meetings are only to be attended by members of the Management Committee and Ordinary Members as appropriate and agreed to by a majority of members of the Management Committee.There are just three members of the management committee. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that affiliate members are not members in any meaningful sense. They have no role in the party whatsoever, other than to pay membership fees. So One Nation, as registered in Queensland, does not have 500 members, it is not a validly registered political party and it cannot receive any public funding. I call on the Queensland government to urgently consider whether One Nation can be a registered party at all under its existing, highly undemocratic constitution.To be federally registered, a party also needs 500 members. My office has been seeking a copy of the constitution of One Nation as federally registered. Members may be interested to know that the Australian Electoral Commission said it cannot actually provide a copy of One Nation's constitution and suggested that I approach a person described as One Nation's constitutional officer. When asked for a copy of the constitution, the gentleman in question, Scott Balson said, `I only look after the Web page. You will have to ask David Ettridge.'The House should know that if One Nation received 13 per cent of the vote at a federal election, if it was entitled to funding, it would receive $5 million of taxpayers' money, of which D2, David Ettridge, would be entitled to 12.5 per cent or more than $500,000. Yet, if this federally registered constitution resembles the Queensland constitution of One Nation, it may not be validly registered at all. So I ask the Australian Electoral Commission to reconsider whether, given the complete lack of democracy inside One Nation, given the complete lack of membership in any meaningful form, One Nation is indeed a validly registered party.Is One Nation a constitutional entity in any meaningful sense or is it just a couple of political and financial brigands trying to hoodwink decent patriotic Australians in the way Jimmy Swaggart once tricked pious Americans? The administration of this party, One Nation, is a complete shambles. Today's Sydney Morning Herald, in talking about One Nation, states:. . . its former Queensland treasurer, Mr Ted Bricks, said he resigned last month over concerns about financial accountability. He said two party members to whom he had spoken made donations of $5,000 and $7,000 but were not given receipts.He said he discovered the money was not deposited in One Nation's account but in "associated" accounts—perhaps Mr Ettridge's—whose details he was unable to establish. The documentation in relation to the financial affairs of One Nation is virtually non-existent.Could it be that Mr 12.5 Per Cent has taken more than that to which he is entitled? Mr Deputy Speaker, you might be interested to know that I happened the other day to pick up the One Nation political party annual return for 1996-1997 and I noticed that the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) had given $5,000 to One Nation in the form of a loan to the party. I just hope that better care has been taken of the member for Oxley's money than was taken of the $7,000 referred to by Mr Bricks.We ought to point out again that D2, David Ettridge, is actually the principal of an overseas registered company operating in Australia. D2 is in fact a foreign multinational. That is what D2 is. And so I say to Scott Balson, who indicated that he would never accept any multinational company on his Web page, that the first person he should throw off the Web page is none other than David Ettridge himself.People need to know what kind of party One Nation has become. They need to know that David Oldfield's and David Ettridge's One Nation Ltd is not a political party in any meaningful sense; it is a business where no-one is allowed to ask questions. Today's Age newspaper said:Mrs Klinghammer said she was disendorsed as One Nation's candidate for Hindmarsh in South Australia after questioning the whereabouts of $7,000 raised at a party fundraiser. She said three other South Australian candidates, Mr David Carter, Mr David Dwyer and Mr Roger Meadmore, were also disendorsed after questioning party finances.I congratulate those decent, honest members of One Nation, or pseudo-members of One Nation, for taking the stance they did. But what happened when they raised these perfectly reasonable questions with the party leadership, D1 and D2? I am quoting again from the Age :We were told we were compulsive liars and traitors, when all we were doing was asking them to be accountable for the money.There are indeed some chronic and habitual liars in the One Nation organisation, but the best candidates for that title are in fact D1 and D2. The best thing the member for Oxley could do, if she has any concern for her party, if she has any concern for the decent Australians who might be tempted to support her, if she has any concern for her own reputation, if she has any thought for the people of Ipswich who voted her into this place, is to sack David Oldfield and David Ettridge. She must get rid of D1 and D2.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—She can't. They'll get rid of her.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—She doesn't have the numbers.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I take the point of the members behind me. She doesn't have the numbers. The member for Oxley needs to understand that she is completely at the mercy of, she is completely dependent on the goodwill of, two people who go a lot further back with one another than they do with her.I think that the nation is sending out a message: please explain, Pauline. The nation wants to know, and One Nation wants to know. When you do stand up to reply, I ask you this: please don't just read a script that D1 has written for you, because if you do you are not worth the $145 travel allowance you have been paid for today.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I call the member for Watson.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Oh!17:24:005972McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Before other members get all upset, there are two hours in this debate, so we will be interested to hear not only what the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has to say but maybe what some more members of the government might want to say. They have all been keen to not be too interested in One Nation until all of a sudden the One Nation train has started running down their track. For two years the opposition have been saying that we think this is an organisation that people should be taking a look at, but the government has not been saying that. Suddenly the government has become a little bit worried. The Queensland election frightened the life out of the government and they have now started to take an interest.SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—And the Labor Party.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—We are the government of Queensland. You missed that, I know. That is probably why you are sitting over here with the Independents rather than with the party you got elected with.We have become used to the coalition playing ostrich on matters which affect the social cohesion of Australia. There is no doubt that, since One Nation was created in 1997, they have been gathering support across the country. The Queensland election showed that. The impression of any of us who have watched it is that to a large extent that support comes from people who have been made insecure by the rapid changes that have been occurring to the Australian economy and who have been seeking easy answers. One Nation came into that breach and provided easy answers. They got 22 per cent of the vote in the Queensland election by supplying those easy answers. What people should understand is that these complex questions do not have easy answers. If they did have easy answers, the major political parties would have implemented them some time ago. The hard truth is that there are no easy answers to these complex questions.Apart from those ordinary Australians who are desperately seeking some certainty in their lives, there are a number of shadowy fringe groups which seem to have had a very large role in the growth of One Nation. It seems to be these fringe dwellers who wield authority in the party—not the ordinary concerned citizens. It is very important to make the distinction between One Nation voters and the One Nation Party. As every day goes by, however, more disturbing evidence is coming forward about the controllers of the One Nation Party and their extremist connections. It is now known that two state presidents of One Nation have connections with the League of Rights. Senator Boswell is a long-time fighter against the League of Rights. If the government had listened to him, as they should have listened to the opposition, they would not be in the position they are in today. Senator Boswell has told us that the Victorian president has addressed two League of Rights functions and the Queensland president has been published in the League of Rights newsletter. Indeed, David Ettridge's brother, Michael Ettridge, maintained that he had been dismissed as a candidate for One Nation because he had called in police to expel extremists from One Nation meetings. Some of these extremists had spoken of making rifles and taking over the Townsville army barracks. One of these groups, the Freedom Scouts, is very extreme indeed.When confronted with these connections with extremist groups, the best One Nation can do is insist that they, One Nation, should not be condemned just because they are supported by these groups. But they won't condemn those groups. They just dance around the edges, in the same way as the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) dances around the edges of One Nation. These extremist groups are attracted like bees around a honey pot. They see an opportunity to gain control of a party and that party's agenda. Witness yesterday's immigration statement by none other than the co-founder of Australians Against Further Immigration, who is now One Nation's immigration adviser. I believe this is just another example of those fringe groups being given the right signals by the member for Oxley and her Rasputin, David Oldfield.As One Nation is now a recognised political party in the parliament of Queensland, the third largest state in this country, the questions of accountability and transparency become important. One Nation now attracts large amounts of public funding—half a million dollars in the Queensland election. As the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott) said, if they got even half the vote that they got in Queensland they would attract nearly $5 million of federal funding in the next federal election. There has been concern raised all across the country about what is happening with that money. Concern has been raised by One Nation candidates in the Queensland election about the expenditure of fundraising money.It has already been mentioned that One Nation's former Queensland treasurer, Mr Ted Bricks, resigned last month over concerns about financial accountability. Mr Bricks was quoted in today's Sydney Morning Herald as saying:The documentation in relation to the financial affairs of One Nation is virtually non-existent.Examples given include two party members in Queensland who had made donations of $5,000 and $7,000 but were given no receipts. The former secretary of the member for Oxley has claimed that several supporters had made donations of $500 but had not been given receipts. A One Nation candidate in Adelaide mentioned that $7,000 raised at a function to pay for how to vote cards had vanished. What did Mr Ettridge say about that? He said that the money that was raised was used for other things. What we should ask is: what were those other things? Were they to do with the political or personal activities of One Nation's owners?That fast and loose approach to contributions may be related to the way that the One Nation Party is set up. We have heard that the party is set up as a limited liability company. Mr Ettridge receives 12½ per cent of the money that they get. It is said by the member for Warringah—and I do not disbelieve him—that the member for Oxley, Mr Ettridge and Mr Oldfield are directors of that One Nation company. But I had a look at the register of members' interests today—for which the latest date is 1 July—and there is no mention in the register of members' interests of this parliament that the member for Oxley is a director of any company called One Nation. I hope that, if the member for Oxley is a director of that company, she might explain to this House why she is not in breach of the standing orders.The supporters of One Nation can be assured that they know who Pauline Hanson is. She has been subject to detailed scrutiny in the media. But we do not know who are the people behind her. We have heard a little bit about David Oldfield, the former staffer of the member for Warringah. Information about his history and opinions is beginning to filter out.But who is David Ettridge, the third owner of the One Nation company? He is the man who is responsible for the finances of One Nation Incorporated. We know he is anxious to avoid paying his full taxes. One wonders if there are many One Nation supporters who would be happy to support someone who evades tax. I know that the member for Oxley has spoken against foreign companies avoiding Australian taxes by making use of international tax havens. Perhaps she should have been looking closer to home for tax cheats. But apart from Mr Ettridge's history as a tax avoider, very little is known about him, even though as a director of the One Nation company he has control over every aspect of One Nation's operations.It is all very well for the member for Warringah to come into this House and beat his breast about One Nation and his former employee, David Oldfield. It is all very well for him to call for inquiries by the police, the tax commissioner and the Australian Securities Commission. Yesterday, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) joined in that chorus and now the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews) is adding his voice. But the one who should have spoken out two years ago is still hiding in the background.This organisation, One Nation, would not be where it is today without the tacit support of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), who encouraged the member for Oxley's supporters at the beginning. Now those faithful followers of the member for Oxley should start to ask themselves: who is running the show—Ms Hanson, David Ettridge or David Oldfield; where are their hard-earned donations going; and where is the transparency and accountability that they have a right to?It is time, I believe, that One Nation voters stopped and had a good look and asked the hard questions. My advice to them is that they should not vote for a pig in a poke. But my advice to the government members here today is to forget about these cheap, phoney motions where, all of a sudden, most of them have become concerned about One Nation.OJ4TAYLORMr Taylor—Not all of us.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—Most of them, I said. The member for Longman (Mr Brough) and his other colleague from Queensland saw that train coming down the track, but the rest of them—the National Party members from Queensland, who are not here in the chamber this afternoon—LK6MAREKMr Marek—That is not right. You are misleading the house.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—He's from Queensland.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—From Queensland? There is one of them: Mr Marek is here. Mr Marek thought it was pretty unfair that other members got to speak in this debate, rather than the member for Oxley. He is running around one minute wanting to sit over there with the government and the next he is coming over here to give her advice. Maybe, son, they might not put you last, but I think they will!The government got on this train too late. It is time the Prime Minister came out and said something, and that we not just hear from the leadership aspirant, who is sitting over there next to the member for Warringah. We should hear from the Prime Minister. (Time expired)17:34:005974Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I will say something at the outset unashamedly. I may disagree a lot with what the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) says, but I tell you what: I will stand here and defend to the death her right to say it. I will defend to the death the right of 500,000 people in Queensland who voted for her and the 34,800 people in Oxley who voted for her.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson will address his remarks through the chair and to the matter before the House.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—I have been disgusted since I entered this House at some of the personal attacks upon the member for Oxley. It is totally un-Australian. We have a problem in this country. The problem is 13 years of political correctness under Labor and an emulation by the 2½ years of the leaderless Howard government. That is the problem. We have not had any leadership on Aboriginal affairs—as the member for Banks (Mr Melham) knows—we have not had any direction in Aboriginal affairs in this country, and that is why the people of Australia are looking for something different, and the people of Australia have a right to do that.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—On a point of order: Mr Speaker, for the sake of consistency, I would simply like to draw your attention to the fact that there is a matter before the House which the member for Dickson has so far chosen to ignore.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson is talking within the standing orders and within terms of the the matter of public importance.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Well may the major parties—in particular the coalition—criticise and fear the new political forces that have emerged on the Australian political scene. The One Nation Party has been vilified by not only most elements of the ABC, which the coalition continually criticises for political correctness and alleged bias against conservative politics, but it has seen a campaign of virtual character assassination waged against its members.No-one can say that it has received the support of the press from any element of the mainstream media. Yet, despite this, in Australia's most recent democratic election, it gained a quarter of the popular vote—and much of it was at the expense of the Liberal and National parties.If the new forces are so base, as Shakespeare would have said, what does that make the coalition if it is losing votes hand over fist to these political forces? Frequent accusations of racism are made but it was both the Labor and Liberal parties which, for most of Australian history, advocated and enforced a White Australia policy, which is still influencing our racial mix. In the Middle Ages, if you wanted to indelibly smear someone, you accused them of witchcraft; in the 1950s you accused them of being a communist; now all that is necessary is the racist slur. For years we have had peculiar, untouchable items within this country—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—While the honourable member for Dickson can range fairly widely, I suggest he needs to have in mind the tightness of the matter of public importance before the chair. At this stage he is moving a little wide of that mark. I suggest he addresses the particular matter before the chair.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—He's a bit to the right.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Moreton will remain silent.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—As has been said by Professor Corcoran in his article, this is what this matter is about. This matter is really a smokescreen to cover the inability of the conservative parties of this place to lead. This country has the worst conservative government that I can recall and I have been following politics for the last 40 years. It is the worst conservative government ever. It has no leadership or direction and that is why we have 500,000 people supporting One Nation.IK6LLOYDMr Lloyd—On a point of order: I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to bring the honourable member back to the subject of the debate. You have already warned him once and he is obviously straying.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is normally a fair measure of licence allowed in matters of public importance, but I do take up the point of order raised by the member for Robertson. Matters of public importance are designed to canvass a particular subject. I suggest the member for Dickson takes note of that and address the subject in any comments he might make. SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—This matter is not about democracy and One Nation. It is about the failure of the political process in this country to recognise that people are rebelling against the system that they have. The democracy aspect of this matter is really a farce. People in Queensland are saying that they have had enough of the system. That is what a great number of people are saying in general. A colourful thread in all of this is that the common folk are somehow at fault, as Professor Corcoran said. Australian culture has been constantly changing and, in the context of this matter of public importance, it is being enriched by internal and external influences. We have to recognise that. The United States has always had a policy of a melting pot of cultures—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This matter says nothing about the United States. I again draw the attention of the honourable member for Dickson to the matter before the House.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—There have been members on the other side of the House that have recognised these matters and that there is an argument. But it is an argument that requires some work. As Paul Sheehan said in his book recently:Thrashing Hanson as a racist and a fool is no substitute for actually doing some work.When are we going to see some major work being done on issues in this country? This is a smokescreen for avoiding the real issues. Why can't the people of Australia be trusted to a referendum on native title? They are only common folk. They would not understand. The member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay) said that it was a complex issue. It is not a complex matter. It is a matter that can be put to the people of Australia. They do not need to be told that that is very complex. We now have a 10-point, 7½-point plan. The 10-point never ever to change plan is now the 7½—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson is way off the track on this MPI. If he does not come back to the particular issue before the parliament, I will ask him to resume his seat.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—This matter of public importance is really a mask for the policy failure of the government. That is the prob lem. There is a total lack of policy. The more you attack the member for Oxley and the One Nation Party, the more votes she will get. I guarantee it. I predicted in the House on 4 June that we would see a revolution in Queensland. People said, `Oh no, that's all right.' The member for Warringah (Mr Abbott), who is chattering away, used to employ one of the Davids. He might want to think about that, too.Mr Abbott interjecting—SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Oh, never ever again! The fact of the matter is that they are not focusing on policy. It is the policy vacuum that this particular matter really embodies—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Whatever the honourable member's view, can I again refer him to the fact that this is not a wide-ranging debate. It is one that is focused specifically on the subject matter before the House. I suggest he returns to it.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—The comment in the matter `and by not being of a basically undemocratic nature' invites, with respect, comment about the democratic nature generally of the political process and of the Liberal Party itself and other parties. We should start looking at some of the processes in the Liberal Party—and we all have a store of stories about that and about what goes on within their processes.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Tell us! Go on, tell us!SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—I am saving them up. This particular matter before the House is not so much about the One Nation Party or Pauline Hanson; it is about policy vacuum, and the people of Australia know it.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I suspect the member for Dickson is defying your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Dickson has the call and I am endeavouring to make sure he stays on the issue before us. He is marginally doing so at the moment.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—As far as democracy is concerned, the Liberal Party should explain why it is that it has meetings in this place where it tells members what the issues are—not the other way around. I would have thought that a democratic party would allow the members to tell the executive—the secretariat, such as Mr Lynton Crosby—what the issues are, but it is the other way around.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is nothing in this matter of public importance to do with the matters you are now canvassing. Please return to the issue before us.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—When it comes to questions of democracy and attacking individuals, we ought, in trying to do the right thing by the people of Australia, avoid the attacking of individuals. We should be attacking issues. We should be providing the leadership that is totally lacking in this country and that the people of Australia are crying out for. (Time expired)17:44:005976Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—It has been very interesting to sit here and listen to all the concerns. Actually, it is very rare that you see bipartisanship happen in this House. You cannot have bipartisanship by either side of the House on concerns of maybe unemployment or looking after the interests of Australians, but you can when it comes to Pauline Hanson or the member for Oxley or One Nation. So Australian people will be very much interested in this.It is interesting that the member for Menzies, Mr Andrews, only raises concerns for newly emerging registered political parties. No doubt this is because he does not wish to discuss the actual details and structure of his own party. Perhaps someone from the Liberal Party in New South Wales would like to explain their unincorporated structure that exposes all their members to huge debts. One Nation has a structure that is public and limited and without shareholders. It, unlike the Liberal Party—at least in New South Wales—protects its members from debts. The directors of this Australian registered structure have serious responsibilities under the Australian Securities Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission. Many sporting organisations have an identical structure, yet no-one questions them.It should be further understood that our reporting to the Australian Electoral Commis sion is considerable and a matter of the public record. In fact, we are subject to audit at any time by the AEC, and our books are kept in a continual state of readiness. This potential for audit places our organisation under greater scrutiny than any company registered with the Australian Securities Commission. The smear of tax havens and questions of democracy are without substance and simply hypocritical considering the well-documented dodgy internal voting of the major parties on such things as preselections and the like. Allegations of the source of funds, work in kind and deals of an interesting nature have been levelled at all the parties, but this is conveniently forgotten in the quest to slur One Nation. With an ever increasing series of untruths, it defies logic and is only surpassed by the desire of the press to be a part of the spread of such nonsense. I suggest Mr Andrews look into his own backyard first and also bear in mind that we report to the Australian Securities Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission, not him or his fellow politically motivated dealers in dark untruths.It is no doubt an eye-opening experience for all Australians. We see without question that you are only united when it comes to opposing the threat we pose to your comfortable coexistence. No wonder Australians are fed up with the gutter tactics they see from the members of this House—their representatives.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Oxley should address the motion before the House.BK6Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSON—I thank the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) and the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) for their support. And I will tell you something: I am not going anywhere.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.Privilege59775977Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Earlier today the honourable member for Hotham raised the question as to whether the Prime Minister or the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business had breached privilege or committed a contempt in connection with statements that were made in the House. The implication of the honourable member's question was that material made available to the House today indicated that earlier statements had been misleading. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Hotham intended to raise the matter formally as a matter of privilege but he used that term and, because of the importance of that matter, I felt that I should respond as soon as practicable and in a considered manner.It is possible for the making of deliberately misleading statements to the House to be granted as a contempt, and I draw the attention of members to May on page 119 and the House of Representatives Practice on page 699. I have had an opportunity to examine the paper tabled during question time by the Leader of the Opposition. The paper canvasses various issues to do with the waterfront; however, it is not clear to me just what the status of the paper is or what in fact it may establish. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that prima facie evidence such as would cause me to allow precedence to a motion has been presented. In this regard, I draw the attention of members to the following statement in House of Representatives Practice:While claims that Members have deliberately misled the House have been raised as matters of privilege or contempt in the House, the Speaker has not, to date, accepted such a claim.Nor do I in this instance.Bills5977r5665977Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.597717:51:005977Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Today, I introduce the Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill 1998 which will modernise the regulation of business and our financial markets. When introducing the package of legislation reforming the Australian financial sector earlier this year, I stated that those reforms to the financial system, together with the wide-ranging reform of Australia's corpo rate laws proposed under the corporate law economic reform program, would provide a launching pad for this government's drive to make Australia a leading business centre in the Asia-Pacific region. This bill builds the framework for Australia's business regulation to foster economic development and employment. It provides key reforms to our laws in the areas of fundraising, directors' duties, accounting standards and takeovers.In March 1997, the government announced it was taking a new approach to corporate regulation under its corporate law economic reform program. The objective of this program is to give prominence to promoting efficiency in the Australian economy while facilitating market integrity and providing investors with protection from fraud, negligence or abusive market conduct. In developing this new regulatory regime, the government, in consultation with the business community and interest groups, is seeking to adopt a more flexible and efficient regulatory framework that can respond to market developments. It will permit market participants to adapt to challenges presented by technological developments, innovation and integration of the world's financial markets.To assist the government in the consultation process, the business regulation advisory group, BRAG, chaired by Mrs Catherine Walter with representatives from key business groups, was established. The government has greatly appreciated the contribution of all groups that have participated so actively in the reform program.Corporate FundraisingThis bill will improve the operation of the fundraising provisions of the Corporations Law to facilitate more efficient capital raising by Australian business. A range of measures will be implemented to facilitate raising investment capital and reduce the high costs of fundraising faced by Australian companies. Prospectuses are often too long and complicated and can obscure information of interest to investors. Issuers frequently complain that they are forced to burden prospectuses with unnecessary information and that prospectus costs are too high. The operation of the fundraising rules will be improved and costs to business will be reduced by:introducing short form prospectuses for retail investors with technical information contained in separate documents that will be available on request;permitting investors in certain industries to be provided with a short profile statement containing key information rather than the full prospectus; andallowing companies to issue prospectuses in electronic form and distribute them through the Internet or other media.It is also clear that uncertainty over liability for the content of prospectuses has added to the complexity and expense of fundraising and has detracted from the prime function of a prospectus to disclose relevant information to investors. The government will clarify the potential liability of parties for prospectus content by providing that their liability will be governed solely under the Corporations Law. Due diligence defences will be made available in all cases of fundraising where there is a positive duty to disclose information.Facilitating Fundraising by Small and Medium Sized EnterprisesThe cost of preparing and lodging a prospectus can be excessive in light of the amount of capital which small and medium sized enterprises, SMEs, seek to raise. This acts as a significant impediment to SMEs seeking public funding. A new fundraising mechanism will allow an SME to raise a total of up to $5 million through the use of offer information statements, OIS. The OIS introduces simpler disclosure obligations. Bodies wishing to use an OIS will be required to state the purpose for which the funds are required, the nature of the risks involved and include a copy of its audited accounts. Investors will be warned of the risks of investing without a prospectus and the desirability of obtaining professional advice.In addition, a prospectus will not be required if a person makes personal offers that result in securities being issued to 20 or fewer persons in a one year period with no more than $2 million being raised. This will reduce the costs faced by SMEs when making small scale offerings without exposing investors to unnecessary risks. To facilitate SME fundraising, a corporation will be able to raise funds from sophisticated investors without preparing a prospectus in a wider range of circumstances.Clarifying Directors' DutiesEffective corporate decision making is hampered by legal uncertainties arising from the potential liabilities of directors for their actions. A business judgment rule will be introduced to provide directors with a safe harbour from personal liability in relation to honest, informed and rational business judgments. The rule will apply where an officer makes an informed decision in good faith, without a material personal interest in the subject matter of the decision and rationally believes that the decision is in the best interests of the company.The objective of the rule is to protect the authority of directors in the exercise of their duties of management. It is not designed to, and will not, insulate them from liability for negligent, ill informed or fraudulent decisions. The rule will not lead to any reduction in the level of accountability of directors, but will ensure that they are not liable for decisions made in good faith and with due care. Directors will benefit from the certainty that the rule provides in terms of their liability as they will be encouraged to take advantage of business opportunities and not behave in an unnecessarily risk averse manner.To reflect modern business practice, directors will, where appropriate, be able to delegate functions to, and rely on advice and information provided by, other persons. The availability of an indemnity for legal actions and directors' liabilities in corporate groups will also be clarified.Greater Accountability to ShareholdersA new `representative' action will be introduced to enhance shareholders' rights to pursue an action on behalf of shareholders where the company is unable or unwilling to do so. This new right of action will provide an incentive for management to exercise powers appropriately and for the benefit of shareholders. Safeguards will be introduced to ensure that company management is not undermined by unjustified or vexatious litigation. The court will need to be satisfied that proceedings brought on behalf of a company are appropriate in that there must be a serious case to be tried, the applicant must be acting in good faith and the action must be in the best interests of the company.Making Accounting Standards More Useful for BusinessFinancial reporting requirements play an important role in Australian companies' ability to compete effectively and efficiently. Accounting standards that are responsive to the needs of both the Australian business community and investors need to be developed, thus ensuring that Australia maintains an informed and efficient capital market. To bring an investor and business focus to the standard setting process, an advisory body, the financial reporting council, FRC, will be established with membership drawn from peak professional, business and government organisations. The FRC will have broad oversight of the Australian accounting standard setting process. It will report to the minister and provide advice on the effectiveness of accounting standards. As a result, the accounting standard setting process will become more responsive to the needs of preparers and users of financial statements.A key role of the FRC will be to ensure that the Australian Accounting Standards Board, AASB, is committed to, and works towards, adopting international standards having regard to what is taking place in major capital raising economies. The FRC will report to the government on the acceptance of international accounting standards in overseas capital markets, on the progress made by the International Accounting Standards Committee, IASC, on developing a core set of international standards and on the International Organisation of Securities Commission's acceptance of those standards.Streamlining Takeover RulesThe current takeover rules are complex and impose excessive costs on bidders and target firms. The bill reforms the current takeover legislation to make requirements simpler and clearer. To facilitate a more competitive market for corporate control, a bidder will be able to exceed the takeover threshold—more than 20 per cent of the total voting rights in a company—through a new mandatory bid procedure before being obliged to make a general takeover offer.The mandatory bid rule will provide two significant advantages. First, by giving potential bidders the choice of which takeover method to employ, they are more likely to proceed with their bids, resulting in an increased likelihood of assets being used in their most productive manner. Secondly, the mandatory bid rule will ensure that all target company shareholders will have the opportunity to sell their interest at a fair price and to benefit from the premium a bidder for control places on the securities.To take advantage of this rule, conditions that reflect the equal opportunity principle underlying the takeover provisions must be met. The mandatory bid conditions include:the bidder must start from below the 20 per cent threshold with only one acquisition being allowed before the mandatory bid requirement is triggered, which must be immediately followed by the announcement of the mandatory bid;the bidder must disclose to the selling shareholder that the mandatory bid requirement will be triggered by an agreement to sell;the bid must include an offer of a cash sum for the securities, thereby giving target shareholders the option of exiting from the company completely. Alternative consideration, such as securities or a combination of cash and securities, may also be offered;the bid must be for an amount at least equivalent to the highest price paid by the bidder in cash or non-cash transactions in the last four months;the bid must be unconditional;target shareholders must be provided with an independent expert's report by the target;the bidder must not exercise control of the target until the offer period starts for the mandatory bid; that is, until the first offer under the bid is made. Until then, the bidder will only be able to influence the affairs of the target through voting shares already held in the target before the pre-bid acquisition that triggered the mandatory bid procedure; andno securities may be issued in the target company, nor dividends declared, from the time of the pre-bid acquisition until the end of the bid period without shareholder approval by a general meeting. However, this prohibition does not apply in certain circumstances, including where the issuing of securities or dividends are announced before the mandatory bid is announced.Takeovers PanelTo address concerns with the current dispute resolution mechanisms for takeovers, the existing Corporations and Securities Panel will be reconstituted to become the primary forum for resolving takeover matters. The panel will retain its existing jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the spirit of the Law. It will also be given jurisdiction to review ASIC decisions on exemptions from the takeover rules given to corporations. All interested parties will be able to bring matters before the panel, not just the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC. Court proceedings in relation to a takeover bid or proposed takeover bid will not be able to be commenced until after the end of the bid period except on the application of ASIC or another public authority of the Commonwealth or a state.Listed Managed InvestmentsInvestors will also have the benefit of the takeover rules applying to listed managed investment schemes.This program of reforms will ensure that Australia's corporate laws meet the challenges of the present and future marketplace in a forward thinking, responsible and innovative way. The reforms are designed to encourage free enterprise for the benefit of all Australians.I wish to place on record my thanks to my parliamentary secretary, Senator Ian Campbell, for the work that he has done in bringing this program together; to Mrs Catherine Walter and the members of the BRAG group; to Julie Abramson, those of my own staff and any of my own department who have worked on this exciting and very forward thinking project. I commend the bill to the House and present the Explanatory Memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills5981r5895981Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.598118:05:005981Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill amends the income tax law to give effect to measures announced in previous budgets and in other government statements.Income Tax deductions for gifts and related mattersThe bill will amend the income tax law to allow deductions for gifts made to certain funds and organisations. Amendments are also being made to ensure that grants paid from the Katherine District Business Re-establishment Fund to eligible businesses in the Katherine region are exempt from income tax. A number of minor amendments to the gift provisions also will be made.Australia—a regional financial centreThe bill honours a commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) on 8 December 1997 when he announced, as part of the Investing for Growth statement, a package of measures which are aimed at making Australia a more attractive regional financial centre by building on Australia's existing advantages to ensure its participation in the increasing global trade in financial services. The amendments relate to the exemption from interest withholding tax available under section 128F, the offshore banking unit (OBU) concessional tax regime and the foreign investment fund and the thin capitalisation provisions of the income tax law.As a means of further developing the domestic corporate debt market, the section 128F interest withholding tax exemption will be widened to allow companies to issue registered and bearer debentures within Australia and pay the relevant interest within Australia. However, the issue of bearer debentures will continue to be restricted to non-residents.The bill will make a number of changes to increase the attractiveness of the OBU concessions by enlarging the range of entities which can apply for OBU status and expanding the activities which are subject to the concessional rate of tax. In order to provide Australian branches of foreign banks access to funds exempt from interest withholding tax, the operation of the `loan back' provisions in the thin capitalisation regime will be relaxed. This will enable foreign owned banking subsidiaries to raise interest withholding tax exempt funds and on-lend those funds to related Australian bank branches without affecting the subsidiary's thin capitalisation position.An exemption from the foreign investment fund measures will also be provided for interests in certain foreign investment funds located in the United States. The exemption will increase the efficiency of Australian investment funds by exposing them to greater competition from US funds. Consequential amendments have also been made to ensure the benefits of providing the exemption to certain US trusts are not clawed back under the general provisions for taxing trusts.The amendments are generally to apply from the date of introduction of the bill. The exemption from the foreign investment fund measures will, however, have effect for notional accounting periods of foreign investment funds ending on or after the date of introduction of the bill. The amendments are estimated to cost $22 million in a full year.Company tax instalmentsThe bill makes a minor amendment to the company tax instalment provisions of the income tax laws to exclude superannuation funds, approved deposit funds and pooled superannuation trusts from the grouping rules contained in those provisions.The amendments, which will prevent certain medium-sized entities from having to pay their tax instalments as if they were large entities, will apply from the 1995-96 income year.Non-arms-length trust distributions to superannuation and similar fundsThe bill gives effect to the Treasurer's announcement of 25 November 1997 to close a loophole in the current law which allows certain distributions of trust income to superannuation entities made under non-arms-length arrangements to be taxed at the concessional rate of 15 per cent. The amendments will ensure that distributions of income from all trusts other than where the superannuation entity has a fixed entitlement are taxed at 47 per cent. The amendments will also ensure that distributions of income where the superannuation entity has a fixed entitlement to income from the trust are also taxed at 47 per cent where the distribution is made in connection with a non-arms-length arrangement. The amendments apply to distributions of income made after 2 p.m. on 25 November 1997 subject to a transitional arrangement.Franking credit trading: holding period and related payments rules and distribution to beneficiaries and partners that are equivalent to interestThe bill implements a holding period rule and related payments rule for shares and interests in shares to ensure that only taxpayers who bear the economic risk of ownership of the shares or interests will be entitled to franking rebates and credits under the dividend imputation system, and the inter-company dividend rebate. The bill also denies these benefits on trust and partnership distributions which are equivalent to interest on a loan. These measures were announced in the 1997-98 budget and they form the final instalment of measures preventing franking credit trading and dividend streaming.The amendments to trust and partnership distributions and those implementing the related payments rule apply from 7.30 p.m. AEST, 13 May 1997. The holding period rule generally applies to shares and interests in shares acquired on or after 1 July 1997, with special provisions relating to trusts applying from 3 p.m. AEST 31 December 1997.Tax penalty arrangementsThe bill gives effect to the 1998-99 budget announcement to replace the existing late payment penalties in various taxation laws with a uniform, tax deductible general interest charge. The new arrangements will be simpler and better reflect movements in market interest rates. The changes follow a review by the Australian Taxation Office of late payment and notification penalties in consultation with professional and representative bodies groups. That review flowed from the government's response to the recommendations of the Small Business Deregulation Task Force.The charge on an outstanding amount will be calculated daily on a compounding basis. The nominal interest rate from which the daily charge is calculated will be set at the 13-week treasury note rate plus eight percentage points. The penalty for late lodgement of income tax returns of individuals and the penalty for underpayment of income tax will also adopt the general interest charge.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the bill to the House and provide the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills5982r2505982Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at a later hour this day.Bills5982r2065982Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at a later hour this day.Bills59835983Bill presented by Mr Moore, for Mr Truss, and read a first time.598318:15:005983Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement two key elements of the government's arrangements for the automotive industry post-2000 by:. reducing the rates of Customs duty on passenger motor vehicles and certain related componentry from 15 per cent to 10 per cent on 1 January 2005; and. establishing the automotive competitiveness and investment scheme, ACIS, which will come into effect on 1 January 2001.In so doing, the bill gives effect to the framework of assistance for the automotive industry announced on 5 June 1997 and 22 April 1998.1. Customs Tariff Reduction The rate of customs duty imposed on passenger motor vehicles, PMVs, and certain parts for PMVs by the Customs Tariff Act 1995 is presently 20 per cent. Under the current provisions of the customs tariff, the rate declines to 17.5 per cent on 1 January 1999 and 15 per cent on 1 January 2000, after which there are no further reductions. This bill will provide for a further reduction to 10 per cent from 1 January 2005.The pause in the tariff from 2000 until 31 December 2004 will offer the industry a vital opportunity to prepare for subsequent trade liberalisation. This will occur as Australia meets its APEC commitments by the year 2010. The government and industry are both committed to the long-term goals of trade liberalisation. The progressive reductions that have been achieved so far, and will be continued to the year 2000, will maintain this forward momentum. At the same time, they will deliver cheaper prices and higher quality to consumers. The cut in 2005 will continue this downward pressure on the automotive tariff. This is consistent with the government's broader approach to trade liberalisation and is fully supported by the automotive industry.2. Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme The bill provides for the establishment of the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme. ACIS will encourage new investment in the automotive industry as it strengthens its position as a self-sustaining, competitive player in the world market. The scheme will encourage investments by automotive firms in the physical and intellectual assets which will secure competitive advantage for the industry in the longer term. It will do so in a manner which, the government believes, satisfies Australia's international obligations.The scheme is directed at the passenger motor vehicle industry. It is intended to encourage the development of competitive firms engaged directly in:1. the production and assembly of passenger motor vehicles,2. the manufacture of components and tooling and machine tools directly associated with such production, and in3. the delivery of design, development, engineering and production services directly associated with such production.ACIS will do this by providing assistance under two separate sub-schemes. The sub-scheme for passenger motor vehicle, PMV, producers will:(i) extend the existing 15 per cent duty free allowance, DFA, earned on the production of passenger motor vehicles, PMVs, to 25 per cent: PMV manufacturers will also be able to earn duty credits for the production of engines and certain engine parts; and the allowance can be earned on production for all markets, as compared to the current DFA which is restricted to pro duction for the Australian and New Zealand markets only; and(ii) enable PMV producers to earn a 10 per cent allowance on their investment in productive assets.The sub-scheme for component manufacturers and service providers will provide benefits at:(i) 25 per cent of the value of investment in productive assets; and(ii) 45 per cent of the value of investment in research and development.These benefits will also be available to PMV producers to the extent that they manufacture components—other than engines or engine parts—or provide eligible services for other parties.All benefits under ACIS will be paid as transferable duty credits, and will be capped for each participating firm at five per cent of eligible sales in the preceding year to meet Australia's World Trade Organisation obligations.In total, the additional entitlements under the ACIS scheme will be capped for the industry as a whole at $2 billion over the years 2001 to 2005. These do not include the existing entitlements under the DFA—15 per cent on production of PMVs for Australia and New Zealand—the continuation of which was announced by the government on 5 June 1997, prior to the government's decision to establish ACIS.The bill provides for the administrative detail for ACIS to be detailed in subsidiary legislation in the form of regulations and ministerial guidelines.3. Summary This package is part of an integrated set of measures which will underpin the competitiveness of the automotive industry in the future. The two elements of the bill are complemented by the automotive market access and development strategy which was funded in the 1998-99 Budget. This strategy is directed by the Automotive Trade Council, which has representation from the highest levels in the industry.It is vital that this package be implemented as a whole. It has the full support of the industry, which is committed to delivering major new investment, employment and exports under the certainty of the measures embodied in the package. Each measure is contingent on the success of the other, and it is essential that the integrity of the package be maintained during the passage of the bill. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills5984The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Veterans' Entitlements Amendment (Gold Card) Bill 1998 National Measurement Amendment Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 Family Law Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 Sitting suspended from 6.22 p.m. to 9.30 a.m., Friday, 3 July1998-07-02Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members5985598509:40:005985Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—A member of parliament's office is like a confessional. Every day, all of us see people who provide us with personal and confidential information. All of them should be able to have the confidence to trust in us that we will never, under any circumstance, reveal this information or identify those who provided the information. I was, therefore, somewhat surprised to hear, on ABC Illawarra radio on Tuesday morning, the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) reveal on air the income of a family who live in my electorate.In a live interview on the ABC on Tuesday morning, the member for Gilmore was spouting from the usual script provided by the government to defend the youth allowance. She had her go and then a few people called to give her the real life situation. Angry parents, none of them one bit sympathetic to the government's script, rang in to complain about the effect of the youth allowance. The member for Gilmore responded to one such caller by revealing on air what she said was the family income of a particular caller. The Edwards family, of Mount Warrigal, went public in their complaint about the member for Gilmore in yesterday's Illawarra Mercury under the headline, `Mt Warrigal mum: Gash got it wrong.'Mrs Yvonne Edwards is a fighter, an ordinary Australian with a little fight in her, looking out for the interests of her son, and I commend her for it. Mrs Edwards is the woman who went to meet with the member for Gilmore to set her straight about the effects of the youth allowance, and for her efforts was dismissed as an `activist'.But the member for Gilmore, on air on Tuesday, bit off a little more than she could chew. When Mrs Edwards disputed publicly that she had told the member for Gilmore what her family income was, the response from the member for Gilmore was that she was sure Mrs Edwards had told her the family income was over $60,000. I can say that Mrs Edwards, in her meetings with me, never once revealed what her level of family income was, and I never asked her.Interesting questions need to be answered by the member for Gilmore. Where did she get this mythical $60,000 figure? Did she just make it up on the spur of the moment? Mrs Edwards says publicly that she never provided the figure to her, and I can say quite categorically that Mrs Edwards never mentioned any figure like that to me.The member for Gilmore has caused the Edwards family some embarrassment, I believe, in making up figures and then throwing them around publicly. This is not the price they should pay because they had the fight to take on the youth allowance policy of the Howard government—which, as I remind honourable members, the One Nation Party leader, the member for Oxley (Mrs Hanson), supported and voted for. The member for Gilmore owes Mrs Edwards a public apology. She should provide that apology immediately. If not, I will continue to pursue her until she does.I know how embarrassing it can be to have your personal financial details publicly revealed. Last year, during a bitter preselection battle for Throsby, someone, who should professionally have known better, made public details of my financial situation and touted around in public what my financial situation was and what my superannuation would have been, had I been defeated. So I share with Mrs Edwards the embarrassment of having financial details revealed publicly. (Time expired)598609:43:005986Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise today to discuss two important issues that affect my constituents: the National Competition Council and the full sale of Telstra. I have noted media reports that the President of the National Competition Council, Mr Graeme Samuel, is to undertake a tour of regional areas to explain the alleged benefits of national competition policy. I welcome that decision, however belated and overdue it may be. I wrote to Mr Samuel this morning inviting him to my electorate and offering to help arrange public meetings. He can be assured of a polite, if not enthusiastic, greeting.I have the most serious and fundamental objections to many aspects of this policy. I do acknowledge that in well-serviced, large urban areas there are benefits. But it is a recipe for disaster and economic and social devastation in smaller communities. In fact, the government recognised this by rejecting the National Competition Council's recommendations for Australia Post. If they had been adopted, rural and regional Australia would have been virtually isolated.The time has come—in fact, it is long overdue—for the government to rein in what I have described as the scorched earth fanatics at the National Competition Council. They sought to strip postal services from rural and regional areas and were rejected. They sought to oppose the single desk selling power of the Queensland Sugar Corporation and were rightly rejected. Retention of this power was absolutely critical and fundamental for the steady and well-ordered progress of the sugar industry: I, my National Party colleagues and cane farmers bitterly resisted its removal and were successful.If necessary, I am prepared to do battle with the National Competition Council on every single report and recommendation, in the interests of my constituents. They are not second-class citizens and understandably resent being treated as such. At the very least, there have to be exemptions from this scorched earth policy if we honestly want to do justice to rural and regional communities. Smaller local shire councils should be exempted from the crippling requirement of competitive tendering.On a separate but related matter of defending and preserving services for rural and regional Australia, I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) this morning, advising him that I would not support the full sale of Telstra. My reasons were contained in a letter, and I would like to quote from that letter. It states:My electorate includes many small communities so you will understand that the people in them are—to say the least—less than impressed by the so-called "customer service guarantee" that would allow a fully privatised Telstra up to six months to provide a telephone service to such communities with a population of between 200 and 2,500 and up to a year if the population is below 200.There are a number of other reasons in my letter why I would not support the full sale of Telstra. My objections to the Telstra sale and my objections to the National Competition Council policy cannot be construed as disloyalty. My first loyalty is to my constituents. (Time expired)598709:46:005987Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I apologise to St Marys Senior High School in my electorate, because I have really been wanting to acknowledge them this year for some time. One of the pleasures of my life is to go along to St Marys Senior High School—I had quite a bit to do with its establishment—to their higher school certificate assembly.Again, 1998 was no different. There were 35 students recognised for excellence. To be recognised, they have to finish within the top 10 per cent in their subject in the state; some of them finished within the top one per cent or two per cent, and indeed one topped the state.I would love to read out all the names, but I will not have time. I thought I would read out the successes of the dux of the school, Marnie Apieczonek. Marnie came to St Marys Senior High School from Mamre Christian College. A point I keep making to the Teachers Federation is that St Marys is actually reversing the drift.In the 1997 HSC, Marnie gained top 10 per cent placings in 2 Unit General English, 2 Unit Mathematics, 2 Unit Chemistry, 1 Unit Applied Studies, 2 Unit Life Management Studies and 2 Unit PD//Health/PE. Marnie was also placed first in the state in 3 Unit Life Management Studies. Marnie intends to study Business/Law at the University of Technology, Sydney.If I were to go through the results of all the students, you would find similar results. One of the great things about St Marys Senior High School is that it is a halfway house between the rigid discipline and force-feeding of students that you tend to get in the junior years of high school and the total responsibility that you need to accept if you go on to further studies at university or at TAFE, or when you go into the world of work where you need to accept responsibility for your own progress.Having year 11 and 12 students studying at these senior high schools is, I think, very good for them. I notice the member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis) is next to me, and of course senior colleges are nothing new in the ACT. They have been working exceptionally well for the brightest of students or, alternatively, for those who see the world of work as where they would like to be. But in New South Wales itself St Marys Senior High School was the first ever public senior high. The establishment of Nirimba College has just been announced, and I hope within a couple of months that the establishment of Mount Druitt College will be announced. (Time expired)598709:49:005987Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I rise to bring to the attention of the Main Committee a matter of legal precedence in my electorate which I believe is quite alarming. Mr Deputy Speaker, the owner of a tavern in my electorate—called The Liars Saloon, of all things—was the subject of a court case recently where damages were found against the publican for having served a Mr Rosser, who had spent, with his friends, some $400 on various cocktails and spirits in a few hours. Mr Rosser had organised for himself a chauffeur to take him home after this drinking binge. However, he got lousy with the chauffeur, grabbed the keys off him and drove home, had an accident and then took the matter to court, claiming that the publican was negligent. The matter was thrown out in the Magistrates Court, but when it got before a judge, Rodney Greaves, in the District Court, he upheld Mr Rosser's appeal and placed the onus and responsibility on the publican.My point here is that this decision in law—and I hope it is appealed at a higher level—sets some dangerous precedents throughout the community. What, for example, if Mr Rosser had killed somebody on the way home? Would the publican or the barmaid who served him be liable? What if we then take it further and say that somebody comes to our house for dinner and enjoys the ambience of the evening, goes home very drunk and maims or injures somebody? Is it then the fault of the host? I think this is a very dangerous precedent and one of the solutions that I am advocating is that all hotels acquire a breathalyser testing machine. I have rung Mr Lester Weston from The Liars Saloon in Victoria Park and he has told me that, since this incident, he has installed a breath-testing machine, but obviously it is too late after the event. From my point of view, Mr Deputy Speaker, I keep a mobile breath-testing machine in my car and make sure that I do not drive home after having lunch if I am over the limit. So that is one way that that can be done.I think it does set a very wide ranging precedent. I think it is quite alarming that the law that is there to protect people and give people comfort, as has been said in an article in the West Australian, should defy commonsense. In this case, the judge, I believe, has set this dangerous precedent and I hope that at a higher level this matter will be appealed. (Time expired)598809:52:005988Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I want to talk about the level of disappointment I have at the government's decision to defund the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, commonly referred to as AYPAC. In what can only be described as a very brief letter, giving what appears to be 12 formal days of notice, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) removed his government's support for AYPAC. The membership of AYPAC is not exactly what anyone could call a group of radical left-wing youth groups. In fact it represents a very broad spectrum of young people in this country.The membership includes groups like Guides Australia, Australian Rural Youth, the YWCA, the YMCA, Scouts Australia, The Boys Brigade, the Australian Young Christian Workers, the Australian Association of Police Citizens Youth Clubs, St Vincent de Paul, Uniting Education, the National Union of Students, the Australian Association of Adolescent Health, Kids Helpline, National Children's and Youth Law Centre, Fusion Australia, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia—FECCA—and the youth affairs councils and networks in each state and territory. That is not a complete list but an indicative list of the sorts of groups that were able to get assistance and encouragement through organisations like AYPAC. The round table alternative which has been put up by the minister, with the greatest respect, I say to those who may participate in the future, is a very poor alternative.What has been the role of AYPAC? Let us have a look. AYPAC is Australia's peak non-government youth affairs organisation. It has existed since 1991 and during that time it has received operational funding from the Commonwealth Youth Bureau in the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. AYPAC is a diverse coalition of youth organisations and networks. Members feel that AYPAC effectively represents their interests and concerns and AYPAC is highly membership driven. AYPAC promotes coordination in the non-government youth sector and amongst national youth organisations; it provides a valuable resourcing role to all youth sector organisations and disseminates information in relation to existing and planned government programs affecting young people.AYPAC is a vehicle for providing comprehensive and constructive policy advice to the federal government. That is the key clause here—`comprehensive and constructive policy advice to the federal government'. I am sorry to say that I fear that some of the comments that AYPAC has made with the best of intentions as representing that body of membership is why it has got itself where it is today in relation to funding from this government. It is called shooting the messenger. This is a very bad policy decision made by this government.AYPAC and its member organisations have extensive experience in promoting youth participation opportunities and offers leadership training opportunities for a whole range of young people right across this nation. I condemn this decision by the government and I call for the immediate reversal of the decision to defund the Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition.598909:55:005989Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise to talk about a very exciting local youth project in my electorate of Dunkley, the Frankston Youth Health Service. This local initiative has been brought about by the community taking charge of the situation and listening to some of the concerns of the young people in my electorate.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And helped by the local member.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—Very much so—supported strongly by the local member. It began about a year and a half ago when one of the local general practitioners, Dr Nicky Martin, a person for whom I have great admiration, and a number of her colleagues, got together to establish a local youth health forum.That gathering was attended by a lot of people active in our community, and by a lot of young people, to talk about the sorts of concerns that were before the young people of the electorate. These concerns included how the health services available in the electorate were meeting their needs and what was the best course of action available to the community to make sure that the health services that young people needed were available in a timely and affordable way. What resulted from that excellent occasion was a commitment to establish a youth health service.With the cooperation and the support of the Mornington Peninsula Division of General Practice, the Frankston Youth Resource Centre, the Frankston Community Health Service, the Peninsula Health Care Network—which is the overarching body for the hospital and acute health services provided on the Mornington Peninsula—many of the local secondary schools, welfare organisations, local drug and alcohol treatment organisations and mental health service providers, the Frankston Youth Health Service was formed. The local police service and the state Department of Human Services also were very supportive of this idea.Those people came together and provided the Youth Health Service through the local Youth Resource Centre. Fourteen local GPs provide their time on a roster basis and on a bulk billing basis so that young people can get the health service and health advice that they need without being worried that they are attending their family doctor and therefore worried about confidentiality issues and what might be discussed in a family health environment and perhaps being embarrassed as a result.The Peninsula Health Care Network provides support with a sessional specialist paediatrician. The Monash Medical Centre's child and adolescent psychiatry department provides assessment and referral support. Local government is in there providing accommodation. The council has also assisted with resources. The Centre for Adolescent Health provides advice and guidance on the provision of services and planning for the future, and there is some corporate sector support.This service has been so popular that it is effectively being overrun. The volunteer support structure that has guided this service and made sure that it has responded to the needs of young people is under pressure. I am working with those local health providers and the corporate sector to see what we can do to provide an Adolescent Health Fellow to support the program. I need to talk to the state health minister, Dr Rob Knowles. I have met with the federal Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has spent time with the people who are organising the program. I am hopeful of seeing this service improve in the future.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Committees599059905990Debate resumed from 25 May, on motion by Mr Brereton:That the House take note of the report.09:59:005990Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—This report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled The Asian currency crisis is a report on one of a number of seminars that the committee has held over the past 12 years. I pay tribute to the current Speaker of the parliament, the member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who when he was chair of the committee instigated this series of seminars. Of course, the current chairman, Senator MacGibbon, has ably carried that on.These seminars are important. It is always a disappointment to me that they are not as well attended by parliamentary colleagues as perhaps I would like to see them being attended. We have all got tremendous demands on our time, but the seminars provide an input for members of parliament—and, indeed, the community—into whatever topic they may be discussing. As in this case—this is a transcript of the proceedings of the day—they are available in printed form. That also enables us in the Main Committee and in the main chamber to debate these issues. They are important, and I hope that these seminars will be carried on and will be well attended.It is somewhat of a truism to say that the so-called Asian currency crisis came as a tremendous surprise to Australians—and not only to Australia but also to many other parts of the world. For many years, Asia had been held up as an example for us of the way to go and the way to deal with our economies, and constantly paraded before us were the growth rates of many Asian countries. As someone who knows Asia quite well and has visited there, I can well remember being in Indonesia a couple of years ago and being told what its growth rate was, how impressive it was and how it had continued to grow at this rate over a number of years. In fact, I remember meeting with the current president, President Habibie, in his former ministerial position, and being told about the dynamics of Indonesia.One could repeat that theme for Malaysia. Malaysia, we were told, was growing at something like eight per cent, from memory; and we could go through all the Asian countries. I remember being on a Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade delegation to Thailand, and there again we were being told of the growth in Thailand. Of course, it was always held up to us in Australia that the Asians had found the secret for a rising standard of living and a continuous growth rate all the way.Things came to a somewhat dramatic halt a year or so ago. As I say, for many of us, it was a surprise—not only because of the speed with which the crisis impacted on these countries but also because of the domino effect that seems to some of us to be occurring. It is true to say that there have been very different impacts, and there are also different future scenarios for many of those countries. For example, in countries such as Korea and Thailand, various structural adjustments will have to be made but, especially in the Korean case, because of the basic soundness of the economy, I have absolutely no doubt that Korea will continue on an upward trend and that growth will continue there. Undoubtedly, some pain will be imposed locally; nevertheless, the currency and the economy are so sound that growth will continue. To a lesser extent, the same will happen with Thailand, I have absolutely no doubt.I am not as confident about Indonesia. Indonesia is paying the price, and will continue to pay the price for some time, for not having looked after the fundamentals of the economy and for having practised cronyism and other such things. There is a real problem with the economy of Indonesia, despite the efforts of the new President in so many fields—and one can only admire and support what he has been doing. Nevertheless, the medicine for the economic situation in Indonesia might be so severe that I worry that there could well be civil unrest there if it were given. So I have a worry about the long-term stability of Indonesian society, with problems brought on by the so-called Asian currency crisis.Of course, no country, from a trade point of view, is more important to Australia than Japan. We all have to watch with a degree of concern what has happened in recent months with the Japanese economy. There has been no growth there, and as Japan has been such an engine house for Asia—and, indeed, for so many other parts of the world—and is Australia's most important trading partner, it has to be a matter of concern for us. We can only hope that the Japanese take the right corrective measures to make sure that that economy, which is so important for us and for Asia, continues to churn along as it should.The worry, too, is that many of these things become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only in the last couple of weeks, people have been talking about the impact on New Zealand and whether the New Zealand economy, because of the Asian crisis, is going to go through some of the turmoil we have seen in countries to our north. I am not sure about that; I am not familiar enough with the New Zealand economy to know if they can withstand it or not. I sometimes think that, especially in relation to Asia, we in Australia could learn somewhat from the New Zealanders because when you go through Asia you see signs for New Zealand produce, and in so many parts of the world, and much more so than you see Australian produce.Interestingly, I saw a letter to the Illawarra Mercury one day this week or last week in which the candidate for the One Nation Party for the seat of Gilmore was talking about trade, accusing members of parliament and other people of being traitors because we had signed various trade agreements and posing the question at the end of this letter whether we should be or could be tried as traitors to the country. It is all very well to bandy words about, especially emotive words, but I would say that the real traitors to this country are those who by their actions, words and deeds have brought us into such disrepute with our neighbours to the north, in Asia.Many Australians do not realise just how important Asia is to Australia, not only because of the fact that two-thirds of our exports go to Asia but because our future is very much tied up with Asia. Those who complain about us becoming `Asianised' and other words like that are often those people who will suffer most if Asia turns its back on us.We are all experts on the recent Queensland state election—I have never seen so many experts so quickly in any place! The one thing that surprises me about the Queensland state election is that that part of Queensland that voted so strongly for One Nation, that beautiful coastal area, is so dependent on tourism. Much of that tourism comes from Asia. It would seem to me, as an outsider—I am not a Queenslander; I am not an expert on it—that the message that that area of Australia was sending to Asia is a wrong message because that area of Australia is so dependent on Asia. I do not know if people do not realise that or have been deluded into thinking otherwise.This report and the seminar made it abundantly clear that we in Australia cannot divorce ourselves from Asia. Asia is important to Australia. There has been some criticism in Australia of our contribution to the rescue packages following the financial troubles in Asia. But it is not in Australia's interest to see Asian economies collapse. I know there have been arguments about whether we should have so much tied up in Asia. But our future, as I keep saying, is very much with Asia. I think there is a legitimate argument about how dependent we are on that trade; about whether we, under the Labor government or under the present government, have worked our way to being too dependent on Asia, that too much of our trade has been tied up or too much of our investment has been in that one area.It always surprises me that Australia only seems to be able to deal with one region at a time. When China was the flavour of the month everything went into China; when Europe was the flavour of the month everything went into Europe; when Asia was the flavour of the month, we put everything into Asia. I think there is a legitimate argument that we should be looking for new markets but we should never disregard old markets for the flavour of the new market. I think we should have a very balanced approach.In many respects, we have no option but to have most of our trade with Asia. With the European Economic Community, Europe turns its back on Australia. Countries like Britain find their future in Europe, and I have no argument with that. So Australia finds its future within Asia. But we should not just look at the narrow part of Asia immediately to our north. We should look at a wider area. For instance, India is a country that we often neglect or take for granted. Only this week we debated in parliament a report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Australia's trade relationship with India—Commonwealth, common language, cricket and beyond. I do not think that got a mention in any newspaper in Australia. There is so much potential for trade with India but we ignore it and I think we ignore it at our peril.As much as some might like, we cannot go back to the 1950s when the world wanted what Australia was producing. Europe was emerging from the Second World War and we were producing what Europe wanted. We live in a completely different society today. We have to compete. It is a very competitive world out there and we have got to be smarter than, or as smart as, the others. We have got to compete. No-one owes Australia a living and we should not expect it.The Asian currency crisis will impact on Australia. It is impacting now and it will continue to impact. Despite what the Treasurer (Mr Costello) might say, Australia is not fireproofed from what is happening in Asia. Indeed, given the nature of the world today, I do not think any country can be fireproofed from Asia. We are so intimately tied up with Asia—and that point has been made in various places in this report—that it is impossible, as much as we might like it, to completely fireproof ourselves from Asia.I commend this report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, The Asian currency crisis to honourable members, especially those who have an interest in what is happening in Asia. It does not provide all the answers. In fact, in many cases, it raises as many questions as it provides answers. On the day, the speakers came from different perspectives and, of course, they had different ideas and a different analysis of the problem and a different prognosis about what the solution may be. I congratulate the committee, especially the former chair and the current chair for arranging this seminar, and the staff who were involved in it. I commend it to the House, and may these seminars continue.10:13:005993Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I would also like to commend the present chair of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator David MacGibbon, and his predecessor, our current Speaker, the Rt. Hon. Ian Sinclair, for their initiative in bringing together what I regard as one of the most important and perhaps prophetic seminars that has been held by this parliament in this parliamentary term since the election in 1996. It brought together a wide range of views and people who are experts in their field from various parts of Australia's economy and the world. As the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said, the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, The Asian currency crisis , is hard work but it is essential reading for a lot of Australians both inside and outside parliament as a means of getting some more insight into what is going on with the Asian economies.I mention also that, by coincidence, I noticed today in the Age a very comprehensive magazine type article on the Asian situation. It is entitled `The year that Asia shook the world'—a prophetic headline. I have the pages here. It is a pity we cannot screen them into Hansard. Also accompanying the feature in the Age today—and I commend the Age for its work in this area—is a report on a speech made by Rupert Murdoch in which he makes some comments and observations about Australia and the Asian crisis. They are very interesting comments. I do not agree entirely with all of the comments and all the analysis in the Age, but it is certainly well worth while having a look at them.I just wanted to make a general comment first about the contributions by all the speakers. There was some conflict between them all, as the member for Throsby pointed out, as to what was going on, what was needed, what the various manifestations of the crisis were in respect of all of the countries. To me, what came out quite clearly was confirmation that, because of Australia's juxtaposition geographically with Asian countries and because of our own economy—a market economy—and because we are a trading nation, we could not ignore what was going on. That was obvious. Everyone agreed on that.The second point was perhaps an obvious statement but I would like to make it. The various problems in each Asian country will have a regional effect with their trading partners, like Australia, and not so much an international effect. In other respects, the effect in those countries will also have an international effect. Work that one out. But, really, if you step back from that statement, you will understand that the crisis is indeed a very severe one and a very serious one. I think it is fair for me to say it will have both an international effect and a regional effect, and it is indeed having that.The other observation I would like to make is that for those of us in the Australian parliament now, and for those who aspire to be here to replace those of us here, I do not think there has ever been a time since the Second World War that this country has needed such unity, dedication, courage and strength to face the challenges that are coming knocking on our door now because of the Asian crisis. This nation and the people who are going to vote at the next election, whenever it might be, need to make absolutely certain that they fully understand the nature and extent of the policies of all the aspirants from all the political parties and the Independents, because there will probably be a lot of those as well, and the effect that those policies would have immediately and medium term and long term on the future of our country and—in simpler terms—on the future of our children and their children.That I think is the crucial issue. This seminar and the transcript help us to grapple with that. I wish everyone in Australia who is a voter would take the trouble to read and study all this. I know they will not. I know that we have had a manifestation since the Queensland election of people, who are rightly worried and concerned about Australia's future, taking what appears to be a simplistic approach to what is needed, without going into policy in depth.I do not want to be disrespectful to those people who voted against the major parties in Queensland and shifted to One Nation. Many of those people are decent Australians. There is no question or doubt about that. I would make an appeal to those people—excluding the fanatical ones from whom you will never get a change of attitude; indeed, I do not think we should even try because of some of the frightening extremism that they are capable of exhibiting—who have shown their dissatisfaction and concern about Australia and voted for One Nation, that whatever decision they make in the federal election should be based on research, knowledge, intense examination of the policies of all the parties and then application of the test that I think we all should apply: `Will these policies benefit or prejudice the future of my children and their children?'They should remind themselves that, since white settlement in Australia, we have gone through some pretty hard times. We talk about our families' experiences and no doubt we have all had different mixtures of background and upbringing. But I can remember, when my late mother had to be moved to a nursing home from the family home, we found a cupboard full of tinned food and it was dated, some of it, back into the 1940s—condensed milk and all that—and this was only two or three years ago. My elder sister, who had a greater knowledge of my late mother's housekeeping, said that that was the cupboard that we were never allowed to touch because mother had gone through difficult times with depressions and wars and she always made sure there was a store of food for the family to be fed in case hard times came again.In saying that, I would like to pay tribute to the Australians in our community who have gone through hard times and are still going through hard times, who can show, through their strength and courage and example, what a nation is really made of when we face a crisis such as the Asian crisis and what is needed.We should also acknowledge that not one of us in our present generation should forget that, when we took over as the adults in the family and the businesses and whatever we did, and now in parliament for some of us, we were handed an Australia that was better than our parents had. They in their turn received one better than their grandparents had. There were more opportunities for us and we must remember that they put a lot of hard work in and put up with a lot and sacrificed a lot to get us there, as did our new Australians, our migrants—and my dad was not a migrant but he came from another country in the 1920s after fighting in the First World War against the Germans in France, then via America into Australia. The stories that he used to tell me about what they had to put up with in England were just frightening. Most of the new arrivals in Australia since the Second World War went through terrible times, but fought through and helped build this country into the great country it is today.All of us must remember, when we vote at the next election, having regard to the things that are there now—the serious Asian crisis—that we have a responsibility to try to hand the country over to our kids so that they have more opportunity than we had, maintaining the tradition of our parents before us and their parents before them. That, I think, is the plea that I make.Now let me get down to the perhaps stark information that is referred to. Murdoch said yesterday that with the risk of more Asian turmoil he has urged Australia to assert itself better. He said:This is a tremendously dangerous time. We are dealing here with more than a normal currency crisis.And so on. In the survey of economists—and I do not want to be disrespectful to economists because my young son is an economist and I am proud of him—they are all different; they have all got different views. The majority of them thought that the economic trouble in Asia would get worse—as if we did not know that. There are a few more optimistic ones that say at the same time that it will get worse but will get better—and that is quite a challenge. How on earth can you do that when we have got so much disunity in this country now? If anyone thinks that this country can go through the Asian crisis and get better as we go, without unity and strength and courage, working together and with a decent compact of policies, they are deluding themselves. Disunity will in fact make the wheel fall off. It will make it harder.The other point I would make is that in the same pages there is an excellent summary of each country—Japan, China, Hong Kong and the rest. Obviously it is an oversimplification in some cases, but in the case of Japan it says:What analysts fear most is another surge in the US dollar and a weakening of the yen as international markets lose faith in Japan's willingness to reform.Interesting. They of course are in a recession now.There is not a lot said about China in the report but we must remember that China has so far weathered Asia's economic turmoil, although there are now signals that China is facing a serious downturn. The reference to banks is worth reading; it is pretty chilling. As for Hong Kong, the government there announced its May reforms. There will be negative growth in Hong Kong for the first time in 13 years, and most analysts now believe that even tougher times are ahead.As for Indonesia, many analysts believe that recovery there is inevitable but that there will be problems along the way, as if we did not know. Regarding Thailand, the most common criticism about Thailand is that high interest rates are strangling the real economy, and that situation still goes on. Concerning South Korea, it is expected that South Korea's economy will shrink by a further four per cent. South Korea is one of our biggest purchasers of traded items but it will be two or three years before manufacturing there is strong again.I have some knowledge of Asian trade but I need to learn a lot more, and I try to. There is no doubt about the Asians. There is one thing you should remember: they have been through tough times before and they have shown that they have the ability to come together and work through them. So when they do come out of all of this they are going to be the most formidable competitors that you have ever seen. They are now, but they are going to be even more formidable in the future.That should send a strong signal to Australia. Australia has not got time to be lax. We have not got time for division. We have not got time to adopt simplistic, stupid policies that will set us back. What we have to do is go forward. We must not shirk our responsibilities. If we do shirk them over the next two or three years and think that it will all be coming to us, things will get harder, not easier. When these economies in Asia do recover they are going to be more formidable traders. Also, they will be more substantial buyers of our goods. So you can see the dual challenge that is there for us.In my electorate I have a number of value added manufacturing industries that export to Asia. I can tell you that already we have had some retrenchments. We are fighting like mad to find new markets. One company, with the assistance of Austrade and the Minister for Trade (Mr Fischer), was able to get a container into a new market in America. Picking up on what the member for Throsby said, we must try to find other baskets and not just have all our eggs in one basket. There is a lot of work going on there.I would like to pay tribute to the staff and management of the manufacturing industries in regional Australia, in areas like mine, who are doing a fantastic job to produce high quality, value added exports. They are trying to weather the storm and find new markets while this crisis goes on. Also, they are trying to help their Asian partners as well. We must not turn our back on our Asian friends. We have to be true friends in these difficult times, as I believe we are given the assistance and all of the—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It is in our own self-interest as well.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—Of course it is. It is in our interest from an economic and a social point of view. The natural thing to do is to help our fellow human beings. And, of course, from a security point of view it is also in our interest. We have a huge set of challenges.Finally, I call on the other political parties to support the coalition in its endeavours. If ever there was a time for a war cabinet, it is now. Support the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Trade and help us deal with the simplistic nonsense from One Nation that will destroy and threaten our trade and security. Stop obstructing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade from doing what they are trying to do. (Time expired)10:29:005996Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. I might say that I agree with a lot of the sentiments of the member for Indi (Mr Lieberman), but he seems to think that the Howard government has a solution to the problems of Asia. He was very good at quoting Mr Murdoch and other people in the newspaper, but none of those people think that. The reality is that the government has no solution to the problems of Asia.It is true that the simplistic solutions of One Nation are obviously not going to work. They would not have any impact if ever they were to be put into place. In fact they are reactionary, with an emphasis on some kind of vague idea of nationalism, ethnic chauvinism and fear of other cultures in society. I agree with the member for Indi that One Nation has no solutions to these matters; but, as for suggesting that somehow the Howard government has shown leadership in this matter, you can read Mr Murdoch's comments very well. Mr Murdoch is saying that Australia needs to do more; it needs to show more leadership and to get more engaged in the problems which exist in the Asian region.The report on the Asian currency crisis, as the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) said, was interesting because of the issues that it raised. It is interesting that the seminar was on 19 March. Since then, there have been dramatic changes and further events have evolved, unforeseen even by the speakers themselves. Not too many of the speakers foresaw the dramatic changes that would occur in Indonesia, for example, in relation to the at least partial changing of the regime there and the stepping down of President Suharto.The thing that is very important when discussing these issues is that we have to be honest, and the member for Indi should note this. It is true that One Nation has no solutions to these issues, but to pretend that we all have the solutions or that we have already worked it all out and that it is just a matter of putting a certain number of things into place is completely wrong.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—I didn't say that.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—No, you did not say that, but you implied at the end in your comments that all we had to do was get behind the Howard government. I can tell you this: the Howard government has not even begun to properly study the matter, never mind actually come up with solutions.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—That is not true.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—That is unfair.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Okay: you say it is unfair, but let me back up my claim and statement. What is the Howard government's response to globalisation and to the issues which have brought these crises about? Basically, the Howard government's response to these issues and to One Nation is to say, `Oh well, there's nothing much you can do about globalisation; we've just got to go along with the flow, and whatever happens, happens.'XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—We don't say that at all.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—What have you put into place? What has the Howard government put into place to protect Australia from the ravages of globalisation? Nothing.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—That's unfair.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—What lessons have been learnt by the Howard government in—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Order!QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—They are getting a bit excited, Mr Deputy Speaker.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—You are talking such claptrap.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Is that right? You had plenty of time to give us an account of one single policy that the Howard government is putting forward in relation to this matter and you totally failed to do so.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Calwell will resume his seat. The member for Indi raises a point of order.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—There are a number of points of order here. First of all, the member should address himself through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and not personally to me. Secondly, with respect to the order and the proceedings in parliament when debating, sure, we can have robust debate and that is fine. But members should not be encouraged to misrepresent and lie about the coalition government's policies—and that is what the member was doing—because the whole standard of debate declines, and we are looking for a better performance from members.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He is probably going to apologise.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—I hope he will; he is a decent man in his own heart, and I ask him to do that. My final point on the point of order is that he said that I did not make any specific points about what the Howard-Fischer government was doing for this country. I therefore ask leave of the member to now add to what I said. Will he now sit down while I do that?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I must address the point of order. On the first point of order, it is important for any speaker to address remarks through the chair: it makes the debate less confrontational. I would ask the member to be relevant to the issue, which is that the paper being considered be noted—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And to apologise for his comments.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I would ask all members to be quiet, please, because they will get their own opportunity to speak later.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He should apologise.0V5Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Mr Deputy Speaker, if you had been here to hear the broad ranging comments of the member for Indi, you would know what I am referring to. I am actually making a very substantial point, which is that—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Are you going to apologise?QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—For what?0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—For the outrageous comment you made.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Members will not intervene—QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The outrageous comment!0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—It was absolutely outrageous.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Fisher—QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The fact of the matter is the Howard government has no response to the problems of globalisation or to the Asian crisis. There is no response. That is the fact of the matter. All you have to do is read the newspapers today. Mr Murdoch himself is quoted as saying that, so I do not know why you would take exception to what I am saying. Let me go further and explain why it is that the Howard government has no response to the globalisation issues.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—And apologise!QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Apologise for what?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Fisher will stop intervening, allow the member to make his contribution and then he will have his opportunity later. We are in a debate.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Let me proceed, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the issue that I wish to raise is that, of course, there needs to be a thorough international analysis of what it is that has brought about the crisis in the Asian region. When Mr Murdoch said today that the situation is dangerous, he was right. There has not been any such analysis from any of the members opposite or from the government. In fact, what needs to be done is to look into the details of the situation and ask ourselves what brought this forward.In the report itself, the speakers disagreed about what it was that brought the crisis on in Indonesia. They disagree amongst themselves. Some claim that Indonesia had brought the crisis on because it had overheated its economy and it had behaved irresponsibly with respect to international monetary targets. On the other hand, other speakers at the forum, including the main speaker on Indonesia, said that in fact the problem in Indonesia was not due to overheating at all but to the way in which the international debt crisis was operating rather than any specific action on the part of the government of Indonesia to behave irresponsibly in overheating the economy. This was backed up by, for example, Mr Paul Kelly in his contribution, where he said that the problem in Indonesia had to do with the way in which the banking structure was operating and not to do with any obvious overheating of the Indonesian economy. So the reality is that even the experts are having trouble coming to grips with the causes of this phenomenon.One of the things that I want to emphasise—and I actually agree with those who see this as more of a phenomenon having to do with the globalisation of the economy which has specifically hit Indonesia—is that it has to do with the way in which the international monetary system is operating at the moment and, in particular, the way in which international speculators are attacking specific currencies and the values of currencies of different nations around the globe.People have forgotten that before the Indonesian crisis we had the attack on the Malaysian currency, although Malaysia was able to fend off that attack to some degree; we then had the attack on the Thai currency, then the attack on the South Korean currency, and it was in that series of attacks that we then had Indonesia. One has to ask: why are there these systematic attacks on the currencies of these Asian nations? Is it because they have not grown sufficiently over the years? Of course not. Is it because the economic strategies in those countries are so bad or contrary to international practice that they needed to be fixed up? That is not true either.So what is the actual reason? The reason has to do with the decision by a number of speculators in international currencies. And I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that every day on this planet one trillion dollars shifts around and changes between currencies of the world. One trillion dollars—that is one million million dollars—moves around. That is, more than the total GDP of Australia—twice the size of the GDP of Australia—moves around every day in relation to the movements of currencies.The international monetary system has moved into an uncontrollable phase. This has been commented on by people from across the spectrum. I imagine that the son of the member for Indi has explained some aspects of this issue to his father. Speculators such as the notorious Mr Soros are moving billions of dollars around the different currencies of the world, attacking individual currencies, forcing their devaluation and they are making profits on the basis of revaluations that may occur. All of this speculative activity does not have any real relation to the growth and production of goods and services in those particular countries. It is possible to make millions—indeed billions—of dollars merely through shifting money around. Most of the currencies of the world have become deregulated in this way.If you analyse the facts, when the Bretton Woods system broken down in 1971, the world began a series of international economic crises. Sometimes, we were able to get out of those crises temporarily. Some nations, like the Asian nations, were able to benefit from those crises and from what was happening to the Western world at that time. The Asian currencies ended up being overvalued and, more importantly, the exposure of their banks was so great that they became debt ridden. For example, in South Korea, 19 banks were bankrupted or rolled over. Why? Because the debt situation in South Korea was unsustainable.If you think that was only the situation in South Korea, you are wrong. In many nations of the world, including Australia, the banks have been overexposing themselves. They have increasingly gone into debt and this whole international debt situation is going to come to a critical point. It is unfortunate for Australia that it is coming to a critical point in the Asian region. As the member for Indi and others have said, it has meant that it is having an impact on our trade, our investment and our future prospects.XU5LIEBERMANMr Lieberman—That's why you should support the Howard government.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Yes, but the member for Indi missed the point. The Howard government is not putting in place any policies to deal with this international debt crisis. You explain to me what they are putting in place to deal with it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Order! The honourable member for Calwell will resume his seat. The honourable member for Indi has had his opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. He will allow the member to be heard in silence in accordance with standing order 55. The honourable member for Calwell will continue.QJ4Theophanous, Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is needed is an alternative strategy—not the Hanson strategy of excessive nationalism, but an alternative international strategy to deal with these issues that have been created and that have been referred to. Such an international strategy needs to be developed by this parliament on a bipartisan basis. (Time expired)10:44:006000Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, just before I seek leave to adjourn the debate, may I just respond to a few of the things that the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) was saying? It is unbelievable that he would come up here and claim that we have done nothing to protect ourselves against what is happening in Asia. The very thing that we have done has been to sort out the mess that you left behind in 1996—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. His function is to adjourn the debate, not to speak without precedence in the debate. If he is going to speak I insist on a response.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order!OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—I have every right to speak in this debate and make a few comments. The member for Calwell was talking about the debt in Asian countries and he has totally ignored the fact that, over the last five years, a government that he was part of whacked up debt averaging about $14 billion a year on a turnover of about $135 billion each year—an average of $14 billion each year on the Bankcard.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Eden-Monaro will resume his seat. The honourable member for Calwell on a point of order.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been misrepresented. I was not referring to government debt, you fool; I was referring to the debt of the banks.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! That is not a point of order. I have not called the honourable member. Does the honourable member have a point of order?NK6MUTCHMr Mutch—On a point of order: I heard distinctly unparliamentary language from the honourable member, and I would ask that he withdraw it, because I can tell you now that this honourable member is no fool.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Would you like to withdraw that insinuation?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—I withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—Briefly, what we were faced with was a government that went out spending $14 billion on average every single year more than they were getting. What that did was take the debt from about $20 billion up to nearly $100 billion. If we had continued that, putting something on the Bankcard every year, what sort of mess would we be in, given what has happened in Asia? That is what we have done. We have made sure that we would not be in the same sort of mess. Under the forward estimates of the Labor government there was a continuation of it.Can I give you a very quick comparison? It was a bit like a small business churning over about $1.3 million a year and losing tens of thousands of dollars every year, or a family on an income of about $30,000 a year having to get a Bankcard loan of $2,500 every single year for five years. That is what that is all about. That is what we did. We got rid of the debt that the Labor Party built up over five years. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a further time.Leave granted; debate adjourned.60016001Debate resumed from 30 June, on motion by Mr Andrews:That the House take note of the report.10:48:006001Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—I rise to speak on the report produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled To Have and to hold: strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships . In doing so I note that this report, having been tabled, has received a great deal of media coverage. I note a particular article written by Paul Gray in the Herald Sun on Wednesday 24 June, in which he says:In my opinion, this report on marriage and relationship breakdown will be the single most significant document to emerge during the life of the Howard Government.I think that we should not, as the journalist says, underestimate the importance of this report. I would, at the beginning, like to congratulate the chairman, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr Andrews), who has taken a particular and personal interest beyond the call of duty on this subject.As members of this committee, we have produced a report that I think will be used as a textbook by many people interested in the area of family relationships in Australia. Indeed, the committee conducted extensive surveys in relation to this report, and they are recorded in the report. The committee secretariat has also done a very good review of the extant literature in this important area. So, as I said, this report will be used as a textbook by many people.The preface of the report commences by stating:This is a report about strengthening marital relationships. It is about preventing marital distress and the consequent breakdown of relationships. It arises from our concern for children; for their future, their happiness and their ability to form their own loving and fulfilling relationships.Some of the main causes of family breakdown in Australia, and obviously elsewhere, are unemployment and work related problems, often getting down to a lack of money and financial worries and difficulties. In many instances we have poor parenting skills. There is also a problem with poor communication skills. We have the ever present and most unfortunate existence of domestic violence, which is a scourge on our community. Some people claim that the ease of getting a divorce often leads to people entering into relationships that they probably should not have entered into in the first place. Then we have other factors such as the geographical and social isolation of families, and indeed sexual matters as well.Some conclusions were reached by the committee. One was that marriage benefits the health and wellbeing of individuals and, conversely, separation and divorce bring with them increased risk for all family members. It has been estimated that the direct cost of marriage breakdown to the nation is $3 billion per year. When you include indirect costs you can double that figure, but only $3.5 million is spent each year on preventative marriage and relationships programs. The committee believes that this imbalance requires correction.The main recommendations—and there were 55 recommendations in all—are very important. The central theme of this report involves the recommendation that the family relationships services program should clearly recognise in its objectives and funding mechanisms programs of prevention—marriage and relationship education and family skills training—as distinct from programs of therapy, counselling and mediation. There needs to be a strengthened national strategy to strengthen marital relationships through programs of preventative education.The priority areas for marriage and relationship education relate to three life transition events—namely, marriage, the birth of the first child and the separation/repartnering stage for those who have gone through the unfortunate experience of separation and divorce.The funding system for the marriage and education program, however, is very inequitable and needs to be corrected as a matter of urgency. For example, the value of the grants ranges from as low as $10,000 to as high as $209,000. There is no excuse for the fact that funding per recipient was over $1,000 in some areas but as low as $7 in other areas. The committee has recommended that approved agencies and organisations be provided with an annual grant of $30,000 to cover administrative costs and that any further grants be made only on a per participant basis.It is very important that we examine promoting relationship education in schools, because this is a whole of society question. The committee calls for a $1.6 million increase in funding for preventative programs in marriage and relationship education and a new, fairer and transparent funding system that will encourage more people to participate in these programs. It also calls for an increase of $1.5 million in funding to programs in marriage counselling.The committee recommends that a new council for marriage, relationships and parenting education be established as a peak body in the field, both to represent the educators involved in this work and, where appropriate, to provide advice to the Commonwealth government.It is recommended that the Australian Institute of Family Studies be relocated to the Attorney-General's Department and its statutory function to promote, by the conduct and encouragement of research, identification and understanding of the factors affecting family and marital stability be renewed and emphasised.In the area of training for marriage and relationship educators in funded agencies, the committee also recommends that all educators working for funded agencies should have reached the national competency standards by the end of the 1998-99 financial year; from 1 July 1999 new educators working in funded agencies must attain the national competency standards within six months of commencing to work for the agency unless they have previously attained the standard; and all educators should complete a minimum of 50 hours practice each year to maintain their accreditation.The institution of the family is the most important part of our lives. When you are down on your luck and in desperate need, you always rely on your family for support. They are the ones who are going to stick with you when the going gets tough. Being the integral part of our society, it is logical and important that the government would invest money into families to help them operate more effectively. In this day and age when too many marriages end in divorce, quite obviously more needs to be done to promote the importance of the family. Of course, both sides of the House are at one, I believe, in wanting to promote these values.Although it is difficult to put a dollar value on the distress caused by family breakdown, it does, in any terms, represent a significant social cost to the community. These issues are exactly the types of issues that the federal government must address. The importance of the family can never be overestimated and it has a major impact on the quality of life and mental, physical and the general wellbeing of all Australians.One thing I did note also, in the preamble to this report, and I would like to cite this as being an important acknowledgment. It is noted on page i:The central importance of marriage and family was explicitly recognised in section 43 of the Family Law Act. This section provided that, in making any adjudication, the Family Court must have regard to the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.I think it is nice to restate that in view of the constant publicity we hear these days from people who are trying to redefine what it means. I would like to say that I think that is exactly the definition of marriage and it should remain that. I would hate to see changes to that because I think that it is so important that we have a full understanding of the basic unit of our society. Of course, there is more than just the husband and wife. There is also the extended family: the aunts, uncles, grandparents and all the rest that make the family the clan, and the extended family structures are the most important part of our society. They always have been and they always will be. I think that it is important to reiterate that definition.In concluding, I would like to give great credit to Claressa Surtees and Mary Anne Neilsen of the secretariat who have done a great deal of work on this report. It is an important report. It has been acknowledged as being so and I am very proud to have been part of this legal and constitutional affairs committee because the standard of work coming out of this committee is exemplary. It really does make me feel proud to be part of it.I think that people should also be aware that all of our reports are now available on the Internet and so they are readily accessible to people. In fact we received a very nice letter from a Trevor Hansford who noted in relation to our earlier report on saving the census:I was also most impressed with the format and presentation of this report. It opens a new and effective means of allowing the public, particularly in remote areas, to access the wealth of information available.He was able to access all of the report on the Internet. In concluding I would like to note the importance of this report and hope that all honourable members take the opportunity to look at the executive summary at the very least because this is an important area for all of us.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—The home page is noted on page viii, I believe.10:59:006003Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—The preface to the recent report that we are noting today, the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled, To have and to hold , concluded:It is timely to renew our attention on the causes of marital stability and instability, and to promote programs of preventive education. With nearly half of all formal marriages ending in divorce, and de facto relationships probably breaking up at an even higher rate, that statement can be viewed as self-evident. This is particularly important when it is considered that one in four children are now born out of wedlock. I must say here that it is both surprising and regrettable that the committee used Australian Institute of Family Studies data which is 10 years old, and that data showed only a 40 per cent divorce rate for Australia.The traditional Australian family has always been typified as nuclear—mum, dad and the kids. This is in contrast to many of our neighbours where an extended family is the norm, with different generations and more distant relatives being involved in the upbringing and wellbeing of children.However, in recent years, especially since the liberalisation of divorce laws in the early to mid-1970s, it seems that the blended family is becoming the norm, with families being composed of individuals who have been previously married with either custody or financial responsibilities for children from previous relationships. Indeed, the committee found that almost half of the children whose mothers were divorced had a stepfather living in the household within the next six years, and about a third of these children also had a half or step sibling living with them. The development of this phenomenon appears not to have been recognised or foreseen in the process which led up to the creation of the Child Support Agency.The committee recommended that a council for marriage, relationships and parenting education be established as a peak body in the field both to represent the educators involved in the work and, where appropriate, to provide advice to the government. That may be a good idea, but why stop at half measures? For years we have had an Office of the Status of Women that has become notorious for pushing its own political agenda and for putting out data which is demonstrably false. For example, every single statement in its 1995 Stop Violence Against Women Day press release has been shown to be false. To give only one example, in August last year, Pru Goward, the current head of the OSW, criticised the Women's Electoral Lobby for writing to the United Nations and stating that 70 per cent of police time in New South Wales is taken up with domestic violence matters. What she obviously did not know was that that figure had been put out by the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence) in her 1995 press release.Similarly, a 1987 Office of the Status of Women campaign claimed that one in three Australian women were at risk of domestic violence and that this was based on US research. However, that US research found that one in three households would experience at least one act of domestic violence but that women were as likely to be the perpetrator as the victim. This falsehood appears to have passed into Australian folklore, as was shown at the recent so-called Men's Conference. At that conference a Western Australian delegate who had flown to Canberra at taxpayers' expense was challenged on services for male victims. He replied that he had already addressed that problem, that he had spoken to all three of them in Western Australia. What was even more surprising—as was pointed out by one delegate who challenged such an inane statement—was that he was not howled down at the conference.Why should we not, in this context, have an office of the status of the family? Here I would urge caution in inflating the role of the Australian Institute of Family Studies which, on occasions, has proven no more reliable than the OSW. I am not talking here about accusations of having its own ideology to push; I am talking here about basic facts. A paper prepared by the late Kate Funder claimed, falsely, that 20 per cent of custodial parents were male. The actual figure is closer to 11 per cent and many of these would be widowers. If an organisation cannot be trusted to get basic facts right, its other output must be viewed with suspicion.Also, we have seen an explosion in the use of domestic violence orders. In a recent documentary that was produced in Brisbane, a respected Brisbane solicitor said 90 per cent of all domestic violence orders issued were an abuse of process of the Magistrates Court. Indeed, that issue was also reported in the ABC's Law report program. Once again, the idea of setting up a council for marriage, relationships and parenting education may well be a good one, but it must be subject to scrutiny so that it becomes neither a refuge for those with their own ideology to push, nor yet another iron rice bowl for a service industry which then becomes self-generating.I am reminded of the episode of Yes, Minister where Sir Humphrey reminds the minister that the level of juvenile delinquency is always proportional to the number of social workers. However, we should not throw up our arms in despair and conclude that nothing must be done or that it is all too difficult or that we would do more harm than good. The issue is far too important for that. I will once again quote from the report:Professors Amato and Booth concluded:If divorce today were limited only to high conflict marriages, then divorce would generally be in children's best interests. But the fact that one-half of all marriages today end in divorce suggests that this is not the case. Instead, with marital dissolution becoming increasingly socially acceptable, it is likely that people are leaving marriages at lower thresholds of unhappiness now than in the past. Unfortunately, these are the very divorces that are most likely to be stressful for children. Consequently, we conclude that the rise in marital disputation, although beneficial to some children, has, in balance, been detrimental to children. Furthermore, if the threshold of marital unhappiness required to trigger a divorce continues to decline, then outcomes for children of divorced parents may be more problematic in the future.The impacts of divorce on children are so well documented that it should not be necessary to repeat them here. The negative results have both short-term and long-term effects on kids, often extending well into adult life. In these circumstances, it is little wonder that some 20 US states have introduced bills to change divorce laws, by either extending premarriage waiting periods, repealing no fault divorce laws, encouraging premarriage education or introducing compulsory counselling.With divorces in Australia now approaching the 50 per cent mark, and with their detrimental effects on children, I do not think that any possible solution should be dismissed out of hand. It is time to reform the family law system greatly. It is time, in my view, to change the whole focus of family law and to return family law to the jurisdiction of the states' supreme courts, where the judges can be circulated through the various jurisdictions. They will not be bored and hammered in the mind-bending, mind-altering jurisdiction that is family law, but will be given a spread across all jurisdictions. That will get better justice and a better-respected court, because the Supreme Court does have the respect of the community. The Family Court does not have that respect, because it will not enforce its own orders. We need to look at major changes to help this situation.11:07:006005Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I wish to address a report tabled last week in this honourable House from the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and entitled To have and to hold: strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships . Initially, I wish to state that I was relatively late in becoming a member of this committee, joining in only September last year. However, I wish to acknowledge the dedication and unceasing efforts of the chairman, the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews), and the strong support from the deputy chair, the member for Barton (Mr McClelland), on the committee's comprehensive investigation of this important matter. I regret that I came late to membership of the committee, because I feel that this is perhaps one of the most significant reports which has been tabled in this House by the 38th parliament.It deals with a matter which touches each and every one of us, whether directly in our own families or indirectly through the wider impact of divorce and relationship breakdowns that are an increasing experience through the greater Australian community. It is certain that the increasing divorce rate is appalling and that it impacts on our whole social structure in very negative ways. The report canvasses that both men and women suffer negative health effects from the impact of change caused by the divorce experience. It has been accepted for some time that there is a clear correlation between marriage and a sense of health and wellbeing, while separation and divorce show a different story. Marital distress has been shown to have strong links with increased mental illness, severe depression, breakdown and suicide, for all family members.The committee heard that considerable research has provided conclusive evidence that marriage is the ideal healthy environment which allows human beings to enjoy fulfilling lives. Research also reveals lower trends in mortality and morbidity rates. The committee heard strong evidence that the process of divorce and the impact of emotional change leave men, women and children vulnerable to poor physical, mental and emotional health in the long-term post-relationship period of their lives.The report also confirms that enormous financial costs to the nation are caused by divorce, costs estimated at a staggering $3 billion, with the addition of another $3 billion in indirect costs borne by the nation. When one considers what might be funded for the benefit of the nation if this considerable amount of money could be allocated elsewhere, we get an appreciation of the ultimate cost to us all. Whilst this report covers, in some detail, the negative impact of divorce in relationship breakdown upon the marriage partners, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the particular effects upon the children of divorced or separated parents, a matter which was especially canvassed during the course of the inquiry.The cost to the children ultimately is not the only real cost to the Australian community in social and economic terms, but the inquiry revealed the greater personal cost in suffering, sadness and depression experienced by many children from divorced families. For this reason alone, it is vital that the federal government make every effort to ensure that marriages should be saved. We all have an investment in ensuring that, with the exception of violent marriages, where there is still real value in a distressed marriage, positive and practical support should be forthcoming for the sake of the children.A couple of years ago my son Matthew worked as a duty manager for a local RSL club. From time to time it was his responsibility to hire young people to work as casuals in the club. Once when we were having a discussion on the effects of divorce upon children he told me that he could tell within five minutes of beginning an interview with a young person whether or not that young person came from an intact family. He said that he found he was always correct in his assumptions. I also had similar experience as a duty lawyer in the children's courts. But the fact is that the divorce experience for a child of the relationship is perhaps one of the worst life experiences that that child may ever have to face, and its effects have been shown by this report to last up to 30 years after the fact.It has been shown that often where the separation or the divorce itself is the relief of great emotional distress for the parents, it is actually the beginning of great emotional distress for the children. Their personal nightmare extends from the grief of losing the presence of a loved parent and includes leaving their home and sometimes their childhood friends, often the trauma of leaving their old school and, terror of terrors, beginning at a new school and having to make new friends in an alien environment.Sometimes just leaving the familiar surroundings of their local neighbourhood and the support of friendly neighbours is an emotional wrench for these children. The loss of the emotional support of the missing parent, which the child has taken for granted during his or her life up to this point, is an overwhelming adjustment for many a bewildered child. The worst of it is the encompassing sadness which is often difficult for children to explain, so many just simply suffer quietly or exhibit their confusion by antisocial behaviour.Added to this mix of confused and sad emotions, there is also a sense of guilt, where many children actually blame themselves for the failure of their parents' marriage. No wonder that many still show great difficulties with adjustments 30 years into their future lives. This experience has been shown to lead to serious behavioural problems and delinquency. When compared to children from stable, intact marriages, these children also score poorly on competence and education achievements. The experience of anger, sadness and depression is a reality that these children take with them into adulthood, and the research shows it affects their own chances of forming long-term, stable relationships.The fact remains, and the reports articulate this very well, that divorce has a very long-term destructive impact on many children. It is a real concern to the members of this committee because so many Australian children are involved in the divorce and separation of their parents. I would like to refer to page 35 of the report where it sets this out clearly and gives qualifications for its statements:A series of other studies indicate:. children of divorced parents seem much more susceptible to psychiatric illness;. alcohol consumption by women whose parents' divorced is far higher than women from intact families;. the incidence of stomach ulcers and colitis is four times higher in men aged 26 whose parents had divorced before the child was five compared to those who had reached 16 years when their parents divorced;. children of divorce living with formerly married mothers have a 50 per cent greater risk of developing asthma, and 20-30 per cent greater risk of injury; and. parental divorce can be a factor in longevity.The decline in behaviour in post-divorce children is also well documented in this report. The national interview survey on child health by Deborah Dawson, referred to on page 36, revealed that children from divorced families were two to three times more likely to be expelled from school and three times more likely to present for emotional or behavioural problems. The same children also recorded higher levels of antisocial behaviour, anxiety, depression, inattention, hyperactivity, dependency and fearfulness.The report also noted that in work done by McCall and Land in 1994, quoted on page 36, youth depression and even suicide have been closely implicated in the impacts of divorce. Reflecting on the research, McAllister, in Marital breakdown and the Health of the Nation, said—this is quoted on page 39 of the report:These findings are of great importance, because those sceptical or unaware of the study of the effects of divorce on children claim that observed differences are the result of economic factors. Accordingly, they argue that children suffer because the standard of their living falls. While it is undoubtedly true that the fall of economic standards has attendant shortcomings, for example, change of house or moving school, it must be recognised that the evidence from research suggests that other factors are in play. Emotional disturbance and stress are particularly notable in the critical years of early childhood.From my own personal experience as a duty solicitor in the New South Wales Children's Court, both at Bidura and Sutherland, I have no recollection of ever acting for a juvenile who came from an intact family. Most came to court with only one parent, usually a mother, while many came with no parent at all.This report is perhaps long overdue, but it is now before the House and the people of Australia. Its findings provide a warning that we cannot ignore. I commend to our government all the recommendations set out in the report, To have and to hold, not just for the parents involved, but more importantly for the sake of the children.I also recommend that this report be read by all those who contemplate marriage as well as all who are involved in family law, and that includes the legal practitioners as well as the support organisations. After all, it is the basic need of all human beings to have those special people in our lives to have and to hold. And this is especially so for the children.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Having read this report, I thank all the members who have contributed to its preparation. I think this is a very significant report.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.60086008Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Andrews:That the House take note of the report.11:16:006008Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I am very pleased to speak on the report entitled Don't stop the music! A report of the inquiry into copyright, music and small business . Before I get too far into this report, I would like to congratulate the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the fine job that it did in a nebulous sort of area. I would like to congratulate the committee chair, the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews); the member for Barton (Mr McClelland), the deputy chair; and all the other committee members. I am from Western Australia and, at the beginning, I would like to own up to the fact that I did not attend a lot of these hearings. The committee travelled across the whole country and I attended the hearings that I could in the House and in Western Australia. It was a very interesting inquiry.I make special mention of Judy Middlebrook, Claressa Surtees and the researcher, Natalie James. The area of the inquiry needed a lot of background research. I believe this is a big win for small business and it is one of the great things that this government has done. It has continually rewarded small business.This inquiry and its terms of reference were sought because of the ridiculous situation that was developing in this country. The situation arose because small business people and small proprietors—such as a hairdresser or barber—had their radios on. Members from APRA, the Australasian Performing Right Association, and from PPCA, Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, went around and asked these business people to pay their licences for playing this music in their premises.How ridiculous! A poor young hairdresser with a person in the chair had the radio on to break up the silent atmosphere. Because it was deemed that she was playing copyright music in a public manner, not only did she have to pay a fee but also there was a chance that she could be prosecuted if she continued to do so without paying her fee. I think it was a sensible move to have an inquiry on this matter so that it could be resolved. I will move on to how it was resolved shortly.One of the concerns made to the inquiry was the fact that APRA in particular became pretty bombastic about the way it went about collecting this fee and intruding into people's businesses, trying sometimes in a clandestine way to find that somebody had their radio on. The worst part about it was that the poor person running this business was not aware that they were doing anything wrong. They had the speakers in the area and suddenly they were confronted by somebody from APRA saying, `Hey, you have not got a licence and you must turn that off, because if you don't we will prosecute you.' So it was a stupid thing.Let me say, before I proceed any further, that we certainly must acknowledge and support the rights of the artists and the composers. They certainly do deserve to be rewarded for putting so much work into composing music, playing music and then having it recorded, et cetera. They deserve their remuneration for that. Nobody really discounts that. They discount the way that these people were being pursued for their licence fees and were not really aware of their rights.I believe this is a big win for small business because, even though the fees were not large, it was something that they were not aware of and it was something else that was just annoying small business people. I just for the record say that the APRA fee for playing the radio is $37 and the annual PPCA fee to play a CD in your store is $47. That is not a lot of money, but it is a lot of time and effort if you end up in litigation because you did not realise that you were not meant to be doing this or you did not pay your fee on time or some such thing.The sensible thing that came out of this inquiry was that in the first place APRA were quite adamant that they had a right to pursue in the manner that they were. They were rather convincing in some of their arguments. However, the beauty about this committee was that eventually APRA came back and in a voluntary manner decided that they would grant complimentary licences for businesses under 20 people. I think that is very good because it is just another imposition on business, especially small business, for somebody endeavouring to make themselves a living.The first recommendation says:The Committee recommends that the Australasian Performing Right Association and Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, in consultation with the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and other relevant peak industry organisations develop an information campaign designed to educate the small business community about the law in relation to public performance of music and the obligations of those people who play music in public.The first recommendation is a very sensible one. First of all, we are recommending as a committee that the small business people, through the business associations, educate the small business people about not only their rights but also their obligations.Secondly, as I have already touched on, APRA came back and in a very sensible way came to the supportive view that they would issue complimentary licences to small businesses who play music in these areas. These were to be businesses employing fewer than 20 people.Let me point out that this is a sticking point. My good colleague here from Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn) also pointed out to me just a moment ago that, if the speakers are placed in an area, it does not absolve them from playing the music publicly. Recommendation 2 says:. . . the general public and any performance inadvertently heard . . . The key words here in the recommendation are `inadvertently heard'. If they deliberately turn on the radio, and appear to be flouting the generous complimentary licence, there is obviously some room to deal with them. But if they have a transistor, radio or CD player somewhere back in their business, and the music is being played as background noise, it is being inadvertently heard. This is the recommendation that we thought was being fair to everybody.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—What about in a barber's shop type of thing?PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Have you been to a barber's shop lately, Mr Deputy Speaker, and had a haircut? We want to know which one. What I would like to say is that the concern is how this voluntary code is going to be endorsed. One of the things is that APRA formalised this approach in writing to the committee. I believe, and there is some argument to say my colleagues may even know better than I—OK6NAIRNMr Nairn—It's possible.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Certainly very possible. I believe that if it is formalised in writing to a House of Representatives standing committee, it obviously is attracting privilege, et cetera and it would be quite remiss of anybody to have formalised this and then try to renege on their formal submission to a committee. I believe that gives quite a good guarantee to the industry that APRA is quite genuine in the way that it is approaching this voluntary code.The alternative is that the committee would have recommended legislation, and I think that could have been a far messier process than the voluntary code that was agreed to. But there still does exist, if this does not work, the opportunity to come back to the parliament and bring this legislation before the parliament to get similar sorts of outcomes to what we have got here. Also, the Department of Communications and the Arts will monitor APRA and will report to parliament in one year after this code has been in place. I think that that is another good check and balance on this whole process.Finally, I would just like to point out another couple of recommendations. There was some criticism that there was still a parallel collecting between APRA and PPCA, but they do collect in two different areas so there certainly is an argument to continue collecting from two different organisations. One of the really good things that have come from this inquiry is that there would be a copyright tribunal which would have wide jurisdiction. What this does is allow conciliation before it ever gets to the courts. Rather than getting embroiled in a long and tedious court case, it allows there to be this non-legalistic tribunal which will sort out these sorts of matters with mediation, et cetera.The committee also recommended in recommendation 6 that there would be a voluntary code of conduct for the copyright collecting societies, and I think this is also a very sensible outcome.Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was very pleased to be a part of the committee that came up with some very sensible recommendations that are not only good for the composers and the music industry, I believe, because it took a lot of angst and heat out of this situation, but also a big win, as I said initially, for small business. Thank you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you. It is a very good report which confirms the value of standing committees' work.Debate (on motion by Mr Sawford) adjourned.60116011Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Andrews:That the House take note of the report.11:29:006011Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Mr Deputy Chairman Forrest, your generous comments regarding the role of the committee system in the House of Representatives could give rise to a suspicion that you are chairman of one of the standing committees of the House.I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Saving our census and preserving our history. This is actually a report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and in the last parliament I was privileged to serve as a member of that committee.It is interesting to note that there has been speculation in the community over whether it is appropriate to retain census data and census forms beyond the period when they are currently kept. There is a range of reasons why various people have advocated that this should in fact occur.The Treasurer (Mr Costello), being responsive to the mood of the community, provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs a reference as follows:The Committee shall look at the current practice of destroying name-identified forms collected in population censuses and make recommendations for future censuses taking into account:—. the effect retention would have on the quality, and hence value, of data from future censuses and other ABS collections;. the privacy concerns relating to the storage and use of name-identified census data;. the value of name-identified records for medical, social and genealogical research released after a significant period of time; and. the cost of retention.The committee conducted many public hearings throughout the nation. It is to the credit of the committee that it travelled the length and breadth of the country, to Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and Wollongong. It received an enormous number of submissions, 291 submissions, along with a number of exhibits and very many form letters.This matter clearly is an issue which has galvanised sections of the community who feel that the existing practice of destroying census forms after the data has been processed is not the appropriate way to go. However, there is no doubt that a lot of people resent the census and having to spend time filling in the forms. But it is important to recognise that government, and the community generally, does need the information which is derived from the census. So the question is not whether we should continue to have censuses but whether the forms should be retained for future use, and, if so, subject to what safeguards.As one would expect, some parts of the bureaucracy were not in favour of retention of the material along the lines of what has been suggested. However, during its many public hearings the committee considered this matter and it has brought forward five recommendations. The first of these recommendations is:The Committee recommends that name-identified information contained in forms from future censuses be retained.The government has yet to respond to the five recommendations of the committee. However, I am hopeful that this first recommendation will be accepted by the government when the response is tabled.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.33 a.m. to 11.44 a.m.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I was discussing the report entitled Saving our census and preserving our history before I was so rudely interrupted by the division in the House of Representatives.3J4SAWFORDMr Sawford—Disgraceful comment.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I think it is an appropriate comment in the circumstances. I suspect that the honourable member opposite would agree, bearing in mind that the opposition were responsible for calling that particular division. Five recommendations have been made by the committee. Firstly, the committee recommends that name identified information contained in forms from future censuses be retained. The committee further recommends that specific legislation be implemented to provide for the retention of name identified information from all future censuses.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 11.45 a.m. to 12.06 p.m.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—This is a multisegmented contribution to the debate in the chamber. I have outlined what recommendation 1 was of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Recommendation 2—that name identified census records be closed for a period of 99 years and that no researcher have direct access to name identified records during that time—is an important safeguard which, to a certain extent, tempers recommendation 1. Most of us will not be around in 100 years, and those of us who complete census forms—and we all do—will not mind if researchers in 100 years time have access to that information. Personally, I have always had a concern that we are destroying our nation's future history when we destroy these forms. I believe that the recommendation brought forward by the committee in fact preserves the privacy of Australian citizens—which is very important—while ensuring that future generations of Australians will have access to historical information which will be of very great importance.Recommendation 3 is that a stated purpose of the census be that name identified information be available for possible future research. That is all about accountability and telling the Australian community that this information will be needed for a certain purpose. Recommendation 4 is that during the 99-year closed access period the census records be able to be used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the purpose of certain epidemiological research. Access for the purpose of such research is to be strictly limited to applications put forward under protocols developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The applications must have received the prior approval of the ethics committee of the institution with which the researcher is associated. The committee further recommends that the NHMRC protocols take the form of disallowable instruments. That is yet another protection to the general community.It is interesting that it has taken so long for a reference of this nature to be given to a parliamentary committee. It is my very strong belief that the recommendations which have been brought forward by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs are fair and balanced. The difficulty we have when we look at this question of privacy—and we have to compare and contrast it with the need for the community to have access to this information in the future—is that we must achieve the appropriate balance.I suppose that, in matters of public debate and public interest, balance is always important and the difficulty is in knowing exactly where to strike it. The report has achieved the correct balance, because the recommendations mean that, in future, we will retain the census forms—that researchers will not have access to them for a period of approximately 100 years but that there can be some use for other purposes in the interim. So I see this as being a win, win, win situation.It is a win for the community, in so far as we retain privacy safeguards. It is a win for future historians, who will be able to document the information contained on census forms. It is also a win for those people who need access to some of this information for other purposes. I am very pleased at the five recommendations and hope that the government will accept them. The government will take into account the full inquiry, the large public interest in it, and the submissions which were received from around the country.I am confident that, given the fact that the particular reference was given to the committee by the Treasurer, at the end of the day these recommendations will become part of the law of Australia and in future we will not go on destroying records which will be essential to chronicle our nation's history. I commend the committee and I am pleased to take part in this debate, albeit in a number of brief segments.12:10:006013Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—I am pleased to support the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the retention of census data. The committee worked very hard on this matter, and in particular the member for Cook (Mr Mutch) is to be commended for his work in so far as this inquiry is concerned. He worked very hard and his contributions to all of the committee hearings that I was involved in were of the highest standard.This is an inquiry that was overdue for Australia. We did need to examine a lot of the questions in relation to the census. The report has recommended that name identified information contained in forms from future censuses be retained. There are privacy safeguards, with the committee recommending that no researcher may have access to the records until the 100th year and that only officers of the National Archives and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are to process or handle census information.That privacy safeguard is important. However, I would have been more inclined to lower the 100 years to about 60 years, because I believe that, in reality, that sort of time involved gives a more contemporary look at some of the trends and problems for our citizens. We may think of the movements of people over time, and we have the example of the terrible consequences for workers who worked in the blue asbestos industry at Wittenoom, whose situation would have been better tracked by the opening up of a more contemporary census for research and other purposes. I do not feel greatly uncomfortable with 100 years but I would have preferred that the period involved be less—with the appropriate safeguards.Really, it is the research that is important. It is important to explain to succeeding generations that these research opportunities that are opened up by a liberalisation of examination of census data ultimately benefit the then extant generations and those coming on. We have heard a lot of evidence from many people about that aspect and also about the genealogical aspect, particularly in the Brisbane hearings which I had the honour to chair.It is important to recognise what the committee has done and the fact that we need to change our view. But also we need to be very careful with information, including statistics. It is interesting that, according to the 1991 census, for example, a considerable proportion of people were not only below the poverty line but below social security entitlements.The point I am trying to make is that this brings into question the accuracy of census information. It is a known fact, for example, that many people—in fact, a large proportion of people—deflate their incomes in their census information, and many of them do not put figures in at all; so much so that it is arguable that either those income figures are basically useless or people are effectively not aware of what entitlements they ought to be getting, when you look at that particular example I gave.It is also interesting to note that nearly 7½ per cent of people do not enrol on the electoral roll. So there are other factors in there in terms of census collection and we cannot be slavish adherents to those sorts of statistical data as well. We have to be very careful—there have to be factors and discounting involved. When we tend, as members of parliament, to quote figures from census documents, we tend to quote them somewhat unqualifiedly and somewhat slavishly, but we must remember those discounting factors.There are a lot of people in my electorate, for example, who complained bitterly about the last census, who did think the forms were an invasion of privacy. I am aware of an instance as well where a particular person, who of course shall remain nameless, was very concerned about privacy questions. This relates more or less to the electoral roll rather than the census, but it is a related thing on privacy which obviously concerns people who fill in census forms. That is, that the people who enrolled on the electoral roll who had a very grave concern about their privacy did not know when they enrolled that that data could be sold to other agencies. Indeed, I inquired about this after a particular constituent complained to me and was informed that that was in fact the case, that the bureau could do that. Of course, people can be enrolled without their address. There are many people who do not know that, that people can enrol and ask to have their address private for the purposes of the electoral roll.When it comes to matters of privacy, we have always got to be concerned. That is what this report has been quite concerned about overall. I have already mentioned the quality of the data, that we have to always be cross-checking. It is interesting to note, for example, that in the United States the census is every 10 years. We have it every five years. Maybe for those people who are concerned about the privacy aspects, their concerns might be assuaged if we looked at the timing of censuses. Maybe we should look at a longer time period, but a shorter period where that material can be opened up, such as 60 years, as I said before. There are ways of juggling it around that maybe can assist the privacy aspects but, as well, the research side of it can be enhanced. Overall, I commend the committee chairman, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr Andrews), and other members of the committee who participated in the inquiry. I look forward to seeing a comprehensive and competent response from government.Debate (on motion by Mr Ted Grace) adjourned.60156015Debate resumed from 1 June 1998, on motion by Mr Andrews:That the House take note of the report.12:19:006015Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I was not a participant in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which has made this interim report on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. However, this is an issue which has come to my notice, as I think it has to every member of this parliament, through the many requests for information that we have had and the many allegations that have been made by the public that this is a conspiracy against Australia. I want to blow that whole theory apart today. The reason for putting this on the public record is that I am very much determined to ensure that my electorate is aware of what this government has done to ensure that international treaties signed by this government are not signed until such time as the public has had its full say.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Open and accountable.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Open and accountable, as I am reminded by my honourable colleague. There has been to this date, according to the report, 792 submissions and some 380 form letters. There has already been one lot of evidence taken here in Canberra, and that process will continue, with individuals from the public being able to make submissions and give evidence to this committee, right around Australia. The information is available on the Internet. It has been advertised widely. When people ring my offices and say, `I did not see the advertisements,' I would like to state here on the public record, as per paragraph 1.9:The inquiry was advertised in the Australian Financial Review on Friday 13 March 1998 and in the following newspapers on Saturday 14 March 1998: The Weekend Australian, Adelaide Advertiser, Brisbane Courier-Mail, Launceston Examiner, Canberra Times, Centralian Advocate, Northern Territory News, Hobart Mercury, Melbourne Age, West Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald . Submissions were called for by 30 April 1998.Whenever people have contacted my office on this issue, we have given them full and frank advice about where the government is on this matter, and where the process is going, and how they can have a role. And yet, having given all of these opportunities, having directed them to the Internet, we still find that they come back and say to us: `This has been done in secret. You people are trying to sell the Australian family jewels. You are trying to give away Australia's sovereignty.' I refer to paragraph 1.22 in this report. It states:Consultation underpins these reforms, and the Committee reiterates the parameters set out by the Minister.That is the minister of this federal coalition government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer). It states:[These measures] will also ensure that every Australian individual and interest group with a concern about treaty issues has the opportunity to make that concern known. Consultation will be the key word, and the Government will not act to ratify a treaty unless it is able to assure itself that the treaty action proposed is supported by national interest considerations.There could be no clearer way to ensure that this must be in every Australian's best interest before this government will sign up to it. The very thought that we, as a responsible government and as a community which exports billions of dollars worth of goods and services every year, should not participate in international negotiation is foolhardy in the extreme.The recommendations of this committee are quite simple: that Australia not sign the final text of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment unless and until a thorough assessment has been made of the national interest and a decision made that it is in Australia's interest to do so, and that the committee continue its public inquiry into the MAI and provide a full report to parliament at a later date.I do not know what more we, as a parliament, can do for the people other than to take their advice, to listen to them, to go out into the various capital cities and regional centres of Australia, and to allow them to come and sit before an inquiry and give their concerns. Further in this report it states that the committee was very disappointed, to say the least, in what the bureaucracy has brought forward. I think that this is what we, as parliamentarians, must draw out of our bureaucracy if we are to protect the interests of our Australian constituencies. It is not good enough for the bureaucracy to simply stonewall, or give inadequate information, and expect the parliament to run away and deal with it.The public expect more from us. They expect us to question our bureaucracy to ensure that we are getting from them the level of information that we require, and that it is in the best interests of Australia. The report does not shy away from the fact that we have been disappointed, or that the members of this committee have been disappointed, particularly with Treasury, and, therefore, it is important that this process continue so that the complete report—this only being the interim—on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, in fact, does spell out the full picture.From my own point of view, I put it on the public record that I do not support any agreement which is not in the fullest interest of Australia. There is nothing at this stage to indicate that this agreement here does that. I will rely on my parliamentary colleagues from all parties representing the constituents of Australia. I will also rely on the integrity of those people who will come before this committee over the coming months and give their evidence so that those wide ranging views of Australians will be taken into account. We will not simply rely on the bureaucracy to ensure that we get the best outcome. The parliament will play its role. The constituents and the constituency of Australia, the average man in the street, can have their opportunity to have their say and play a role to ensure that if any multilateral agreement, or any other international agreement, is signed by this country, its first and primary role must be in the best interests of Australia.I do not believe that that has been the case in every instance in the past and that is why the public are upset. The public say that for too long too many of these agreements were signed without their knowledge and that was true. This government has moved to ensure that this is an inclusive process, so all Australians have their say.I commend the work of the committee. I commend all of those Australians, some of whom I must say hold some very odd views in relation to secrecy and conspiracies, because a conspiracy to me is when you actually withhold information and send out the wrong picture. This is allowing everyone to be involved wholeheartedly. I encourage them to do so over the coming months and I am sure that the minister will listen to the report that comes down. I look forward to the opportunity of debating it further when the final report is adopted here in parliament.12:26:006016Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonIND00—There is a much overused saying in Australia. I cannot use the unparliamentary word, but I will amend it. The saying is: give them the mushroom treatment, keep them in the dark and feed them bulldust. I think people will know what the unparliamentary word may have been. In regard to the interim report on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, many Australians would probably say just that.One of the problems that we encountered on the committee—and I am sure I can speak for many members in this House as having encountered it—is that something has crept up on us. Suddenly we find people coming out with conspiracy theories that the member for Longman (Mr Brough) mentioned because something has suddenly crept up on us. Not all of us or all our constituents read Hansard. The only ones who do probably are those who need cures for insomnia or something like that. The fact is that this thing did creep up on people and the bureaucracy and business were giving it a big tick.I am sure the member for Moreton (Mr Hardgrave) will remember the day down here in Canberra hearings when, through perseverance and erudite questioning, we made some Treasury officials quite uncomfortable. Furthermore, I felt there was an element of arrogance attached to the representative from business. I am not quite sure of the name. It was the Australian Chamber of Commerce, I believe, but I am not 100 per cent sure. But there was an element of arrogance attached to his evidence—how dare we and the people of Australia question this thing?One of the questions I raised in relation to the treaty—and I do not know whether it has been ever answered—was whether or not under the treaty it was possible for a multinational corporation to employ child labour in a particular area and be untouched by the government which would be the recipient of that child labour? In other words, if Australia wanted to impose a ban on soccer balls that were being made by children in India, if this thing was in place, could it stop the Australian government from taking measures to prevent that material being imported into this country? That is a very significant question.I hate using the word `globalisation' because I do not think anybody really knows what it means, except that it is frightening and mostly to the constituents that you talk to about it. But the fact is that this is a sort of masterpiece of globalisation and it is something that has not just been thought of yesterday. It has been in its genesis and embryonic stage for a long period of time. You try and get a copy of it. A constituent of mine who regularly calls me about many issues did try to get a copy of the particular draft. It was almost impossible. He was told that it was something like 700 or 800 pages long.On the aspect of conspiracies and being concerned, I do not blame individuals for being concerned. I do not blame individuals for saying, `Look, this is yet another conspiracy,' because when they look at the recent history in relation—(Time expired)Adjournment601710000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! It being 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.601712:30:006017Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—This week members would have received this document from the St Vincent de Paul Society entitled In defence of the bush . The statement gives examples of how government policies, closures in essential services and industries, are hurting rural New South Wales. In many ways the hurt being felt in the bush is also being felt in the cities but the effects are slower due to marginally better employment opportunities and services in the city.The long-term effects of economic rationalist policies are being felt right across Australia with employment opportunities in rail, Telstra, the Roads and Traffic Authority, county councils and banks dwindling as we speak. The point the government is missing in the economic debate is that people go into business to create wealth, not to create jobs. Employment is only incidental to their business and profit is the main motive. There is no incentive for business to employ people; they only do this if it assists in the profitability of their company. In a balanced economy there is a role for government enterprise, private industry and small business to complement each other and maximise employment opportunities.The social justice statement refers to the Commonwealth government's reduction of tariffs on imported orange juice to five per cent. Australian growers can no longer compete with Brazilian orange juice concentrate which is imported at $30 per tonne compared to local production costs of $200 per tonne. The document states that citrus growers in southern New South Wales are bulldozing and burning half a million healthy 40-year-old Valencia orange trees because they cannot afford to pick and sell the fruit. The point is made that the reduction in tariffs to five per cent can be contrasted with the fact that imports of Australian juice into Brazil are subject to a 40 per cent tariff.An example is given in the document of the effects of a closure of a central service in country towns. The example relates to the closure of a bank in the northern New South Wales town of Mungindi. This town had one bank until August 1996 when one month's notice was given that it was being closed as a result of a feasibility study showing that it was unprofitable. Customers were told that their accounts would be transferred to Moree which is 120 kilometres away. A number of alternative methods of banking were tried for this town and currently a credit union is operating successfully, but business in Mungindi did suffer and people travelled to Moree to do their shopping and banking.The statement also refers to the closure of the Cobar mine where 260 workers lost their jobs overnight. The workers were laid off with a month's wages and accrued annual leave still owing. The work force was owed approximately $9 million. The Ghana based Ashanti Goldfields refused to meet its legal commitment to its work force. Every business in Cobar felt the flow-on effects of this closure, with at least $1 million owing to local enterprises; 18 full-time workers at the brickworks were sacked as the mining company owed the brickworks $145,000; an engineering workshop was left with a bad debt of $90,000, forcing the retrenchment of five full-time workers and the jobs of the company trainees and apprentices also under threat; a local hardware store has been forced to lay off two full-time staff and three casuals; and cafes, corner stores and other retailers have cut casual staff. The most devastating effect that happened in Cobar also happens in metropolitan areas when a company closes its doors. The effect is not so immediate but the slow drip of insecurity starts immediately the company announces its decision to close its plant.Take the case of Dow Corning which has begun a two-year phase-out of manufacturing operations at its Blacktown plant. About 40 employees will be affected by this decision. The company representative when asked how staff had reacted to the news said, `There was shock, surprise, distress and anxiety.'I am sure this is the way many Australians are feeling today with this government being more interested in having a budget surplus than meeting its commitment to the unemployed, the aged and the young families, particularly those in rural Australia, whose plight is set out in the St Vincent de Paul Society's social justice statement.601912:35:006019West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—Recently the Redland District Committee on the Ageing, or RDCOTA as it is most widely known, handed over the keys of a wonderful rehabilitation cottage, adjacent to the new Redlands Hospital, to the Queensland Department of Health. This unique cottage, the first of its kind in Queensland and the Redlands, has been designed and furnished to resemble the type of home a patient may return to when discharged from hospital care.RDCOTA has identified that the strongest motivating factor in rehabilitation is the patient's desire to go home. However, the strongest concern felt by most patients and carers is the fear of their inability to cope in the home situation.RDCOTA is an independent, non-profit organisation that promotes the interests and wellbeing of citizens over the age of 50 within the Redland shire. RDCOTA was given the task of creating a rehabilitation haven that really encouraged rehabilitation. All too often hospitals create dependency due to their wide corridors, fittings for the handicapped, and the availability of constant help. While hospitals serve a definite purpose, they do not provide adequate settings for rehabilitation.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 12.36 p.m. to 12.48 p.m.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—Before the suspension, I was talking about the RDCOTA cottage for rehabilitation. Catering for all ages, this is a fabulous facility for those patients who require rehabilitation services after injury or the onset of ageing afflictions such as stroke and acquired brain injury. The rehabilitation cottage provides the opportunity for patients and carers to adapt emotionally and physically to their changed health circumstances, in a relaxed, non-clinical atmosphere.I commend both Graham Hyde, regional director of South East Queensland Health, for his initiation of this project and the RDCOTA team for their dedication and commitment to seeing this project through in such an amazingly short time. Just to thank `the team' is not enough. Congratulations are due to each and every one of the RDCOTA president's advisory committee: Judy Tottle, chairman; Alla Cragie, secretary; Jack Rosa, treasurer; Clyde Gilmour, Ian Crane, Tony Sweeney, David Parr, Ron Loney, Dianne Edwards, Kath McNelly, Carolyn Santagiuliana, John Marsson and Albert Benfer.I could not possibly list the names of all those who sponsored this project or contributed in some way, as funds and materials came from so many in the local community, but this is the single most impressive feature of this project—that the whole community was encouraged and actively engaged in contributing financially to this worthwhile project. This is a clear example of how partnerships can be forged between the local community, the health bureaucracy and a community organisation, all dedicated to getting this project up and running. I wish RDCOTA every success in the running of this fabulous rehabilitation centre and look forward to enjoying a strong working relationship with the organisation in the future.The RDCOTA team have already shown such strong dedication and professionalism in bringing the concept of the cottage to fruition that I have no doubt the venture will enjoy every success. Their next project is the coordination of the community support for the International Year of the Older Person. Already it has all the semblance of continuing the successful record achieved by the completion of the rehabilitation cottage project. This being the case, I look forward to assisting the committee in the successful completion of this future community project.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the next speaker I advise the committee that, due to the divisions, the adjournment debate will conclude at 1.12 p.m. I call the honourable member for Corio.602012:51:006020O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—On 23 June I raised a matter in the House relating to the withdrawal of funding to a JPET program run by Create Geelong in my electorate. I raised at the time, when the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) was on duty in the House, some questions relating to why this funding has been withdrawn. I requested that the minister agree to meet with me to discuss the matter and to canvass ways in which that funding might be restored.It is a very successful program which is catering to young unemployed people in the northern part of my electorate. It is an area of extremely high unemployment. The rates of unemployment in the Corio and Norlane area are not only one of the highest in the state of Victoria, but they are as high as anywhere else around Australia. There is a very real need for the services of this JPET program because many of those unemployed people are young people who have been using this service, and using it successfully.There are some very serious questions to be raised about the procedures which gave rise to the decision not to fund Create Geelong in the northern part of my electorate. This particular JPET program is run by a skillshare called Create Geelong which has a management committee comprising prominent community people in the northern part of my electorate. It has extensive support within the local community. Indeed, for the program that was funded previously there was a community contribution of around $90,000, which was matched by Commonwealth funding of about $130,000. So the local community has thrown its weight behind this particular program and, of course, the clients—the young people who have used this service—and their parents have written many letters to me asking why the service has been defunded, seeing that it has been such a successful one as far as outcomes are concerned.The neighbouring electorate of Ballarat, which I put on the record once again, and which is a marginal Liberal seat, received JPET funding for two of their programs in areas where the level of general unemployment was not as high as the levels of unemployment in the Norlane and Corio areas—DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—I wonder why that was?DH4O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The honourable member may ask why that is so. I think we have to look logically at what might be the reasons that the JPET program in Corio has not been funded. Interestingly enough, the JPET programs in Ballarat did not receive the same level of community contribution and support nor were they servicing the same number of clients for the money that was being put in by the Commonwealth and, indeed, the local community.I raise these questions on the floor of this committee because I am determined to get to the bottom of why this particular program has been defunded. The people who are being affected by this are young Australians who deserve an opportunity to improve their skills and to prepare themselves for a job market.There are some rumours circulating within my community about why this program has been defunded. I have not been able to verify the rumours that are circulating, but I serve notice to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott), with whom I have a good relationship. I have raised this issue in all honesty with them, to give them an opportunity to restore the funding or to look for a way for the Commonwealth to fund the program. I will pursue this matter, because all is not well in the state of Denmark. (Time expired)602112:56:006021Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party and our nation's longest serving Prime Minister, said many fine and well-founded things during his lifetime. It is just over 20 years since his death, but his inspiration proves timely. In the face of a lot of today's political agenda, I believe it is important to revisit Menzies' and therefore Liberal Party philosophy.Menzies chose the name `Liberal' deliberately. He saw our party not as a conservative party, although we contain conservative elements and engender the support of conservatives, but as a party of progress, a party which promotes worthwhile change, a truly liberal party.At the Conference of Representatives of Non-Labour Organisations held in October 1944, which ultimately led to the formation of the Liberal Party, Menzies said:There is no room for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation.In Australia today, we certainly do not need opposition for opposition's sake.There are those, of course, who would proffer an agenda which seems simple and, at first, perhaps acceptable. But this agenda is in fact quite out of keeping with the Australian way developed over a long period. The Australia of 1998 did not arrive because of foreign influence and conspiracy, but rather because of the values that Australians have always found acceptable; values for which Australians fought and died; values which have helped our nation stand out amongst all others in the world; values which have encouraged people from all parts of the world to come to be part of this nation; values which have shaped our nation into the egalitarian, generous, tolerant and responsible nation we are today.As a nation, we have always been a people of the fair go, the Australian version of Martin Luther King's sentiment of judging no man by any criteria other than the calibre of his character.Tough economic times do prevail as we move from the industrial age to the technology age, just as there were tough conditions when we moved from primary to secondary production. The false prophets offering the promised land have peppered the history of mankind. They come; they go. Often they come and they blame some innocent minority group for every social ill, every disease, every economic event. Such a blame mentality destroys the harmony of a society. Uttering ill will to others is an easy course to take the spotlight of inadequacy off oneself.There is an inherent un-Australianness about those who seek to divide by race, creed, nationality or circumstance the various peoples which make up Australia. Not only is there no basis of fact to their claims but there is no acceptable philosophy other than the kind of nationalism made famous by Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s when middle of the road politicians were voted out in favour of populists in Germany.On 13 October 1944, Menzies warned:There is free thought and free speech and free association for all except the enemies of freedom.Menzies understood that the enemies of freedom would take many forms. Menzies inspired the Liberal Party to set forth and create a nation where `citizens are free to choose their own way of living and of life'. Language ability or otherwise was not a barrier. Would we have denied Sir Arvi Parbo or Sir Gustav Nossal a place in Australia because of language? What about Taiwanese born Gordon Fu of MacGregor in my electorate? He has created hundreds of jobs in Brisbane through his shrewd business skills, yet English is not his strong point.Sir Robert Menzies saw a nation `in which living standards rise steadily as physical resources expand and ingenuity grows'. In his speech of 1944, Menzies talked of thrift, enterprise and reward for effort. He talked of tax reform in order to help families. He talked of encouraging investment through the right types of monetary and other economic policy—major public policy not based on off the cuff pronouncements, but on an underlying logic.There are a few racists in every country, but we are not a racist nation. Menzies never saw us this way, despite his own great love for his own motherland—the love that so many still hold for Great Britain, Ireland and Europe. All of that should be a ready example for others to understand that there would be just as much understandable affection for the land of any one person's family heritage. People from other countries are welcome here in Australia; they contribute to our common future.In 1994, Menzies saw big government as authoritarian and dangerous. People these days expect government `to provide and do'. This reliance on government by so many Australians is probably the source of much of the angst at the moment. The Howard government is attempting to restart individualism in Australia, and, of course, many resist this. Likewise, government still has a way to go to withdraw from many of its unnecessary intrusions into our lives.Menzies posed the challenges. He highlighted the principles for national success, which the Liberals and the Nationals under John Howard uphold today. Menzies said it for all of us on this side when he spoke without qualification or caveat, no exclusion along class, creed or colour lines. Menzies said what Australia is all about when he said:I see the individual and his encouragement and recognition as the prime motive force for the building of a better world.These are all matters worth standing up for and being counted for today. (Time expired)602213:01:006022Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—During the last couple of months, many in this House have been somewhat critical of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson). I am reluctant to engage in this criticism because I believe it is only giving unnecessary publicity to an individual and a political party which, quite frankly, are not worth it. But I am somewhat amused at some comments attributed to the member for Oxley. The first is that she objects that too many tourists are coming here and they are doing so on prepaid trips.Depending on when the election is called, I intend to go overseas for a very short time during the parliamentary break. Like most sensible travellers, my accommodation will be prepaid because it is half the cost. Over 90 per cent of the thousands of Australian tourists who each year visit Asia do so on prepaid package deals. I suspect most members of parliament, unless they are on an official delegation, also prepay. I cannot see what the member for Oxley objects to. The money still pays for accommodation in Australia and it also contributes to the wages of Australian workers in the hospitality and tourist industry.I note, too, that she objects to signs in languages other than English. Quite frankly, I am unaware of how frequently, if ever, the member for Oxley has been overseas. On the Tokyo metro system, all signs are in English and Japanese. As a frequent visitor to Tokyo, I am quite relieved about this. Last year I went to Kobe airport. I arrived there, and, by following signs in English, left the plane, got on a small transporter, went through customs and then on another transporter, then was directed to a bus, got on the bus, went to the harbour, got on the boat, went across on the boat, was met on the other side by a bus, went on the bus and was delivered to the hotel—all by following signs in English. There are Japanese and other signs as well.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, as you would be aware, Australians are not the world's leading linguists, but we are among the world's leading travellers. Surprisingly, our most travelled destinations are countries where English—or strine—is not the lingua franca. For many Australians, it is with a sense of relief when we see the signs `English spoken' or `Australian breakfast served'. Many of us like to think the world is becoming a smaller place and that international understanding is increasing. One way to achieve this aim is through travel. It may be a cliche to say that travel broadens the mind. It may be true; it may not be. But it certainly improves one's linguistic ability.I would suggest to the member for Oxley that she reflect on some of her comments and realise that, just as we cannot close our borders to others, also we cannot retreat into a fortress Australia. We cannot increase our tariff barriers, because others will retaliate against us and we will all be the victims of such actions.I suggest also that those vigilantes who want to white out signs with other languages on them, be they street signs or shop window signs, should think about it. What if this happened in other areas? What if, for instance, in Thailand, there were only signs in Thai, or in China only signs in Chinese, or in Chile only signs in Spanish? It would be very difficult for foreign visitors to those countries. I would hate to think of the terrible anguish and turmoil for Australian tourists overseas if this happened. How could they travel through Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, Korea, not to mention places like Kurdistan and Uzbekistan?Perhaps One Nation's policy is to make it unlawful for any Australian, for any reason, ever to leave these shores. After all, according to One Nation we have it all here. Why go overseas to eat challenging foods? Why go overseas to listen to funny languages? Why go overseas to look at strange old buildings? Why go overseas to experience and explore cultures other than our own? We have it all here, we do not want to share it with anyone and we will fight to keep it. But if every nation took the same view—no more tourism, no more foreign signs anywhere—why not go all the way and ban the learning of foreign languages? Is this what the member for Oxley wants? I suspect that she has not thought this matter through.602313:06:006023Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—On 30 June, it was my pleasure and honour, along with a number of my parliamentary colleagues, to attend a workshop entitled `Courts and the political arms of government'. The workshop was organised by the Judicial Conference of Australia with the purpose of providing a forum for members of the parliament and their judiciary to talk to each other about how constituent concerns might best be dealt with in matters such as Family Court cases, sentencing of offenders and the expression of community concerns about these and other matters.The forum also addressed the question of how access to justice can be improved. It was a privilege for me to attend the forum and to learn more about the work of the Judicial Conference. The conference is particularly concerned with the work of advancing a strong and independent judiciary through such activities as education of the public, communication with other arms of government, continuous improvement in the quality and accessibility to the judicial system and research which will benefit these aims.I found the forum to be a particularly valuable exercise. All of us in this place from time to time have cause to deal with people who are experiencing the legal system as litigants, defendants or parties to Family Court matters. To these people the law can be a frightening and confusing structure, and as members of parliament we must often do our best to comfort and assist these people, without, of course, having the power to intervene directly where the courts are involved.A forum of the sort that I was invited to attend is therefore extremely helpful because it equips us as members of parliament to explain to our constituents how they can go about assisting themselves within the legal system. The forum was also extremely useful from another standpoint; it provided me with an opportunity to bring to the attention of the members of the judiciary the concerns of my electorate of Makin. I would especially like to thank Professor Stephen Parker of Griffith University, who as secretary and treasurer of the Judicial Conference chaired the forum. As I said before, one of the aims of the Judicial Conference is to continuously improve the quality of and accessibility to the judicial system.One very important aspect of the accessibility of the judicial system is that our citizens understand and have confidence in our courts and the work that they do. In particular it is important that our courts, while maintaining their independent role, are seen to be in touch with community views and standards. Indeed, one of the topics at the forum, as I said earlier, was entitled `The courts and community sentiment'. I took the opportunity to bring to the attention of the judges who were present the strong feeling in my electorate of Makin, and indeed throughout South Australia, about the release of prisoners who have not shown signs of rehabilitation and who continue to pose a threat to the community.Recently I had cause to lodge a petition on this subject which I will shortly be submitting to the state parliament of South Australia. This petition calls for the safety of the community to be the paramount concern in decisions relating to sentencing and parole, particularly in relation to crimes such as paedophilia and other offences of similar magnitude. I think this petition will demonstrate to our state politicians and our judiciary the importance of our sentencing laws reflecting the very genuine concerns of the community. I believe it is my duty, not just as a member of parliament but as a member of my local community and a parent of three boys, to foster a healthy relationship between an independent judiciary and a community which feels safe and confident, and to take the community concerns direct not only to our state and local politicians but to our judges who are sentencing the criminals.Main Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m.