1998-07-153817REPS608501998-07-15Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 10.00 a.m., and read prayers.Adjournment608510:01:006085Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 31 August 1998, at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.The House has been called to address certain Senate amendments today which arise from the conclusion of the Senate sittings late on Saturday night.For the benefit of the members, I take the opportunity of this first motion to outline the proposed course of action for the day to deal with the matters which are in hand. There are seven bills which have been amended in the Senate and which, for their final passage, require the response of the House of Representatives. Those seven bills, which have been advised to members from my office and the details of which have been provided to the Chief Opposition Whip, are the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 , the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997, the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 , the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1998 and the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 .The proposal for the balance of the day—which we hope to finish by 5.45 p.m. on a time schedule which I have supplied to the opposition—is that we deal with the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 this morning for a couple of hours and to complete that legislation, and then to deal with the two copyright amendment bills in a cognate debate prior to question time at 2 o'clock. We will not adjourn for lunch. We will work through lunch. We will have a standard question time at 2 o'clock for three-quarters of an hour.It used to be the case that question time was always three-quarters of an hour, then over time there was a debate about the number of questions being asked and the length of irrelevant answers from the then government. When Mr Hawke was Prime Minister he agreed that we should try to secure about 14 questions per question time.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—How many?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—About 14. It was not a hard and fast rule, as the Leader of the House in February 1992 advised us, but that was the deal. In fact, things were so bad in question time that the Labor Party was then embarrassed to have about 14 questions per question time. Of course, what happened was that you could not shut them up and the old three-quarters of an hour rule for question time would balloon out to 1¼ hours or to 1½ hours, depending on the politics of the day. Prior to that, it used to be three-quarters of an hour. If you go back to the Fraser days, we used to knock off 20 questions in three-quarters of an hour, or thereabouts. It was not until the election of a Howard government that we finally brought some accountability back into question time and actually required ministers to answer questions and get on with their answers, and if they did not have an answer to a question, to sit down.Today we have allocated 45 minutes for question time. When the Howard government has question time, all the ministers have to turn up. We do not have rostered days off like they used to. Mr Keating said—what were his words?—`question time is an indulgence we offer the opposition.' Those days are over, thank heavens! Today we will have question time. In fact, I go so far as to say that we are rather looking forward to question time today. I do not want to say any more. You are just going to have to pay your money and be here at 2 o'clock, if you want to see it. Question time will then carry on in the usual manner.Mr Kerr interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The more points of order we get from you, the fewer questions you will get to ask. That ought to put a bit of discipline on you for a pleasant change. Then we will return to government business and conclude it. As I say, hopefully, we will conclude at that appointed time.We have had some discussions between the government and the opposition about the management of the day. We have agreed to organised mayhem as opposed to disorganised mayhem. Hopefully, we will continue to have the opposition's cooperation. If necessary, of course, we will move a guillotine motion, but I think we will secure the continuing cooperation of the opposition for the day and that will see matters complete at 5.45. I do not expect us to have time for an adjournment, but obviously we will continue to monitor how things go during the day so that people can catch flights and meet their other commitments.In respect of question time, in recent years with the Labor Party there are seven occasions when the House sat on an extra day and out of those seven occasions we only had question time twice. In fairness to the then government, you have question time depending on the demands of the parliament to deal with the business of the day. I make it clear that, in the many years that we will be in government, whether we have question time in future will depend upon whether there is time for question time or whether we ought to give priority to the management of government business. Today is no more precedent than on previous occasions.The decision of the Senate not to resume until 31 August has provided us with an opportunity to align the two houses, the two chambers. This will give members an extra couple of weeks in their electorates, which is a good thing. Because the Senate has made the decision that it has, it opens up a window of opportunity for us to get on with our electoral work. I know that members are keen to do that. That does mean that we will have a three-week block when we come back on 31 August. We try to avoid the three week blocks in the sitting patterns because that is a pretty long stint but, given that we are getting the two weeks in exchange, I think that is a pretty fair deal for the House. It will bring us back into alignment with the Senate as we then proceed to what will, as a consequence, and all other things being equal, be a nine-week sitting period to complete the sittings for the year.That represents the intended course of action today. I thank the opposition in advance for their continuing cooperation.10:08:006086Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—The Leader of the House (Mr Reith) correctly characterises our basic attitude to this set of propositions but does not outline fully the concerns we have with it. There are precedented elements of this government's decision and there are some pretty unprecedented elements. The unprecedented one worth drawing attention to is the pushing back of the date of the start of the sitting of the House of Representatives. This is a government at sea. There are no two ways about it. This is a government wandering around, popping about like a champagne cork cut adrift in the Indian Ocean while it tries to work out its policy.Last year the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) invited us all on a tax adventure. It was not a matter on which he had consulted his party or even his Treasurer (Mr Costello). He did that two days after a budget. He decided at that point of time that he would break a `never ever' promise on the GST and, without consultation, cut his people loose. He said in that tax adventure: `You will have an opportunity for a full-scale discussion, a consideration of the options. We will release that statement in plenty of time.'There was an assumption underpinning it all in the briefing the government gave the media at the time that last December we would have a tax package, that last December we would have an opportunity to discuss what was touted by the government as the greatest piece of taxation reform that a government had ever presented to the Australian people. What an extraordinary piece of nonsense that was.From that point on the internal wranglings of this government around that tax package have become legion. They have absolutely no idea what direction they want to go in. The Treasurer struggles with the consequence of an off-the-top-of-the-head remark by the Prime Minister, and is unable to devise a saleable package.Make no mistake about it. We are coming back on 31 August not because of some decision by the Senate; the Senate is supposed to operate on legislation given it by the House of Representatives. The mere fact that the House might meet a couple of weeks before the Senate meets is neither here nor there. Any halfway decent government would have a decent amount of legislation to put before the House of Representatives for due, detailed consideration in the House of Representatives before the Senate is called back.The simple fact of the matter is that, having had a notion originally to get a Wik double dissolution up well before now and having seen that go foul of them, then having decided to get a knock-on effect from some set of propositions about selling the country's greatest national asset and having found that go sour on them, and then going through the process of trying to get in place a tax package which they hoped would put them on the roll and have that go sour on them, they do not know whether they want to call us to an election on 5 September, or 29 August, which has been pre-empted by Tasmanian Premier Rundle, or a bit earlier than that, or whether they now want to give themselves an October option or subsequently pick up a December option and so on. The putting back of this parliament is merely a product of one concern—and that is to put off a meeting of this parliament should they determine that they will go to an election in October, having decided that they need more flexibility than an originally proposed election in August would give them.Why are they doing all that? They are doing all that because they cannot get any unity on the subject of the sale of Telstra and they cannot get any unity on a tax package. They cannot direct the affairs of this nation. They wander around in confusion, largely of their own creation: firstly because of their lack of principle in relation to their active, overt and early encouragement of the emergence of that praying mantis which is eating their heads off, the One Nation Party, and secondly because of a set of confusions that arises from their inability to handle key public policy. I have already mentioned the tax package. Let me mention Telstra. Tax, you will recollect, Mr Speaker, came not from a process of deliberate public policy making and serious consideration of concerns for the fiscal stance of this nation, but from a Prime Minister seeking a diversion on a budget. The privatisation of Telstra came from a Prime Minister seeking a diversion from his mate Senator Parer. So without consulting his National Party colleagues, without consulting his cabinet colleagues, he went up to Brisbane and, to take off the front pages the difficulties he was then experiencing with his friend Senator Parer, he threw Australia's greatest national asset to the winds. He stood up and said: `We will privatise the lot.'He utterly humiliated his Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer). He threw normal, conventional, decent, ordinary public policy in this country into limbo as he went through that exercise, and now confronts the ultimate consequence of it in the government's humiliation in the Senate last week. I only have to go to a quote from the President of the National Party in Western Australia, Dexter Davies, about the Prime Minister. You do not have to read too myopically between the lines on this one to get what he is talking about in regard to Telstra. He says this:The Nationals have to wear the whims of a Prime Minister, who at worst makes policy on the run to shore up a problem in some unrelated area . . . What might we be talking about when we see those words: might this not be a reference directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, to what I was saying a moment or two ago on the origins of the Telstra policy? He goes on to say:. . . and at best only consults with his Cabinet colleagues and then expects the complete support of the electorate.The time has come when the leadership of the federal parliamentary party needs to not only acknowledge federal National Party policy, but to be seen to respond to the concerns of its constituent organisations.That is the reward for pathetic public policy. That is the consequence of the messiest government this country has seen in a very long period of time—really since the days of Billy McMahon. We have had one policy mess after another from this government. We have had a public policy mess on Aboriginal affairs in relation to those Wik decisions. We have had a public policy mess on taxation. We have had a public policy mess on the sale of Telstra. We have had a public policy mess on employment programs. We have had a public policy mess on industrial relations when we look at what happened with the waterfront confrontation. We have had a public policy mess on nursing homes, which still is not resolved.We have had two and a half years of incompetent government. This incompetent government is now struggling and juggling with its dates for an election. There is only one reason why this parliament's next siting is being postponed for a couple of weeks. It has nothing do with the legislative program; it has everything to do with the confusion in this government about election timetables. For a year and a half now this government has been plotting an election. For a year and a half now it has been looking for windows of opportunity. For a year and a half now it has been introducing a totally confrontational style in the Senate that it almost controls.For a year and a half now, as they have shattered the confidence of Australian business and as they have shattered the confidence of Australian consumers, they have been pushing out the barrow of an early election and they still have not yet come to a conclusion when they want to do it. But they have determined that, if they are going to have to push out their date from August, they will not have a parliamentary sitting before an October date. I suppose, if they decide to push the barrow beyond October, then we will come back to this parliament in a couple of weeks from now and have a bit of a chance to sit for a few weeks before that cat is belled.Let me you tell the cost of it to this country because this is a serious matter of concern for all who deeply love this nation and who have spent a very long time in politics—as you, Mr Speaker, and many of us have. The Australian political agenda courtesy of this is all wrong. We are focused on completely the wrong issues at this point of time in our nation's history. We have a situation now where the international economy is starting to interplay with the shattering of confidence that I referred to earlier in the Australian economy—the broken business confidence in this country and the threatened collapse in the short- to medium-term of people's job security and opportunities to work.This election, whenever it comes, ought to be about skills, about the opportunity of our people to work and about the opportunity for our people to survive and prosper in a world which is getting tougher and tougher for them. Instead, we are focused on the sorts of issues that the government has encouraged One Nation to put on the agenda and we are focused on privatising Australia's greatest national asset when we ought to be working out how to exploit it for the development of Australian industry. We are talking about a taxation policy devoted primarily to putting in place tax bribes to enable the country to vote for a tax proposal which ultimately will bring down tax on the one employment growth area in this nation—our service industries—at a point of time when we desperately need growth areas in employment in this country. We are discussing the modalities of putting in place a tax to discourage people to employ in that area. We are not discussing the real needs of this nation.Never has Australian politics been so introverted. Never has Australian politics been so focused off the main game. Never has there been so little confidence in the way in which public policy is devised in this country.WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—DT4CREANMr Crean—Why are you taking a point of order?WI4REITHMr Reith—My point of order is on the question—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You said no points of order.WI4REITHMr Reith—During question time. You will just have to wait until 2 o'clock.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will address his point of order.WI4REITHMr Reith—My point of order is on relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order on relevance.WI4REITHMr Reith—I think a really broad sweep is fair enough, but not too wide.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his place. The Leader of the Opposition has the call on a motion for adjournment. The Leader of the Opposition has a licence to roam on the motion that is before us and he may do so.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—It is nice to have confirmation of effectiveness at 10.20 in the morning. I am very glad to have that. In case the Leader of the House has forgotten, we are discussing the postponing of the date of the sitting of this parliament—that is what this special adjournment is about—and I am talking about the consequence of it. The consequence is that this parliament does not get the chance to focus on what are the key critical issues confronting this nation.We have to get out of the trench which we all in Australian politics are puddling along. We have to get out of that trench and into an area of genuine relevance for the Australian community. That applies to all of us in this parliament—government and opposition—because we have lost our way in terms of the real needs of this nation. We have to shift and change our policy agenda—shift it back to what gives people a sense of security, shift it back to what encourages business to innovate and shift it back to what produces security of employment and job opportunity.We are way off the mark now in the critical issues that this nation is discussing. If we do not get there at some point in time over the next couple of months, the penalties are going to be paid well beyond the life of this parliament and well beyond the life of the next.10:22:006089Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I also rise in this debate to indicate that there have been some discussions with the government on this and that the opposition does welcome the fact that there will be a question time today, although getting it was like drawing teeth from that mob. Mr Speaker, you might recall that we asked that this point be committed to when last this parliament met and really the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) reverted to the former Prime Minister's defence. He quite liked that defence then. It is an indulgence extended to the opposition by the executive. This was the Leader of the House that not until yesterday and today confirmed the fact that there would be a question time.Even though it will be a truncated question time, the opposition welcomes it—truncated by the government's having said that it will only last for 45 minutes. We will be keeping a close eye, Mr Speaker, on the four-minute limit and we will be drawing your attention to it.WI4REITHMr Reith—There is no limit.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Now the Leader of the House says there is no limit. It is not the suggestion he was making to this House previously, when he was trying to suggest that they had reformed their ways from those rambling answers that never addressed the point and in which it was not unusual for question time to go for double the time that has been allocated today.This point also needs to be made. Here is a government barely two years old. It is a government that most people expect will be facing its last parliamentary sitting day today, with all the speculation of when the new election will be. What government would not want to be using the opportunity in the parliament to trumpet its successes? What government that was confident in its reform process, what government that was saying that it was going to be the greatest reform government of the lot, would not actually want to use this parliamentary sitting day to make sure that these issues came on? Not this government.This government gives every indication of being a government that is running scared—a government that wants to avoid the scrutiny, a government that does not want to be confronted with having to answer the questions. Not only is it question time that has been truncated today but also the opposition is not being allowed in this parliament to have its MPI. Why would the government want to avoid the MPI? Because I suspect it knows we would be raising the issue of Telstra—an issue that cannot be raised elsewhere today because of the nature of the business before the House, except of course in question time.Telstra was the great initiative of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). We know the circumstances in which the Prime Minister came up with this initiative. It was when he was ducking for cover from us identifying the conflict of interests of Senator Parer. Telstra was the Prime Minister's smokescreen for Senator Parer; yet he just will not go away! He keeps re-emerging from the smoke and the haze and the fog looking even more battered every time. This guy will just not go away. He has been caught red-handed and, as last week demonstrated in the Senate, he continues to be in breach of the Prime Minister's code.The further sell-off of Telstra was to be one of the great pieces of weaponry in this great reforming government. But, as last Saturday showed, having had a special sitting of the Senate, the Prime Minister cannot even deliver on this. It is an issue around which his own backbench is in revolt. It is interesting to see the member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey) laughing on the back benches, because she is on the record apparently as having spoken out against the full sale of Telstra. Why will the government not let this be debated in the House? Why will we not give the opportunity to the member for McEwen to stand up in this House for her constituents against what her government is proposing? No, this government is trying to close off the opportunity.Had there been an MPI, it would have been very interesting to see whether the member for McEwen would have been prepared to stand up in this place and say what she has been saying to the local newspapers. This is the problem with these members. She sits next to the member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent), the member who went down to mass rallies of his constituents in relation to the textile, clothing and footwear industries and said he supported them on the tariff freeze but who voted against them here, just as did the member for McEwen. These people are representative wimps. They will not represent their constituents properly in their electorate. They do not represent them. Both these members go around the electorate saying they support their constituents, but they sell them out in this parliament.The other point is this: not only is the backbench in revolt over the Telstra issue but also it is an issue over which the government's coalition partner is falling to pieces. This is something that the government cannot control, and it is something that the government is trying to avoid. It is another example of a government ducking for cover. The final example of this government ducking for cover is the fact that the parliament now will not come back until 31 August, some 21 days subsequent to when it was originally scheduled. Why? We can understand why the Senate, having sat for almost a week and a half last week in an extended sitting, might be in a position in which it has no other business to transact, but why the House of Representatives? Don't tell me that one day here of mopping up is the equivalent of two weeks in the parliament.Let me ask the Leader of the House: why is it that we have not had brought on for debate the legislation on the car tariff issue, the legislation on the textile tariff and the legislation on the changes for eligibility for R&D tax concessions? This is a government that is trying to pretend in the public mind that it is addressing these issues but will not bring that legislation here for scrutiny. These are issues that should have been brought back on today or, indeed, on 10 August were we committed to stay with the original timetable. We had no indication until today that this House was going to be adjourned as well until the end of August, yet there are vital issues before this parliament that should be debated.It is a government that is ducking for cover. It is a government that will not face up to its responsibilities. It is a government that, running scared on issue related factors, when it has been forced by us to develop a position on legislation, will not bring that legislation on for debate. Whilst we have this unfortunate circumstance today, we will cooperate with it, but let us underscore the point that this is a government running scared, a government ducking for cover, a government that is ashamed of its record and a government incapable of using the opportunity today to lift itself as it should.Question resolved in the affirmative.Leave of Absence6091Motion (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.Business6091Motion (by Mr Reith)—by leave—agreed to:That business accorded priority for Monday, 10 August 1998, as determined by the Selection Committee, be accorded priority for Monday, 31 August 1998.Bills6091r5556091Debate resumed from 30 June on motion by Mr Anderson:That the bill be now read a second time.10:31:006091Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 in principle. In the course of my remarks, I will formally move a second reading amendment, which my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) will second. At the conclusion of the second reading stage of the debate, I propose to move that the bill be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs for consideration in detail prior to the committee stage itself.When this legislation was introduced into the parliament—by leave from this side—on 30 June, it was said opposite that it was for introduction only. In the course of my remarks on that occasion, also by leave, I said that in principle we supported the legislation but we wanted to make sure the parliament got the detail right. We want to make sure that this legislation does not give sight unseen a blank cheque to RFAs that had not yet been signed, because there are some important parliamentary issues to be dealt with here. The amendment that is being circulated in my name goes to process, substance and detail. I will start with process.The bill was introduced on 30 June, and it was said at the time that it was for introduction only. Here we are back for one day, back for a two-hour limited debate, and without the appropriate or the proper period of time being given to interested parties for consideration of that detail. For what purpose? This House and the Senate now come back on 31 August, so what is the rush here? What is wrong with giving substantive detailed consideration to substantive legislation? What is the point of seeking to ram through this House today legislation where the interested parties have not had the appropriate opportunity to consider the detail. If you are interested in long-term security and the consequent long-term benefits that go to industry, it is clearly the case that this legislation, if it is to be enacted by this parliament, ought to be enacted with broad or complete bipartisan support. So the House can ram this bill through today, and then what does the bill do? It sits there doing nothing until 31 August. So what is the rush? I suspect the rush is to deal with matters entirely unrelated to the substance and the importance of this legislation—that is, the forest and forest products industry.I do not need to go any further than to refer to a submission I received from the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania on that point. The Tasmanian RFA is one of the reference points for this legislation. When the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania wrote to me on 10 July, the council said as follows:While this legislation was due to be introduced by June 30th the lack of wide consultation with interested RFA Stakeholders suggested to us that it had been delayed.Its introduction without this consultation meant that most groups have had no input into its content. In the event, this has suited some of those groups but raised problems for others.I repeat:. . . the lack of wide consultation with interested RFA Stakeholders suggested to us that it had been delayed.This is from the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian RFA is one of the reference points for this legislation.As a result of the effective two-hour limit on this debate, we have all been asked to compress our remarks, so I will effectively halve my time. I will restrict myself to a number of substantive matters. I said on the introduction of this bill and now that, in principle, we support this legislation. Why is that the case? Why do industry and interested parties in this area want the legislation? Because they say—and I think it is a valid point—that, while there may be agreements between the Commonwealth and the states, the history of this industry is such that in the past such agreements have effectively been torn up. Legislative underpinning gives some added security. That is fine, but if the Commonwealth parliament is to enact legislation which underpins agreements between the Commonwealth and the various states, then this parliament ought to do that in a deliberative and careful way. If this parliament seeks to give benefits to agreements, some of which we have not yet seen, there also needs to be some way in which the parliament can take cognisance of those RFA agreements that we have not seen.What is suggested by this legislation is that RFA agreements—nine of which have not yet been signed—take the benefit of this Commonwealth legislation. What is effectively being asked is that the parliament put its hand over its face by way of a blindfold and give to the nine RFA agreements that have not yet been signed, sight unseen, the same benefits it seeks to accord to three signed RFA agreements of which this parliament can take actual, imputed or deemed knowledge. At present we have three signed RFA agreements—East Gippsland, Central Highlands and Tasmania—and this parliament takes them as it finds them, but what do we do in respect of the nine that we have not yet seen? There needs to be some mechanism where this parliament can have cognisance of future RFA agreements.The reason that the opposition supports this legislation in principle could not be found in a better place than the Australian Labor Party's national platform, which was adopted in Tasmania, appropriately in this area—and the member for Denison nods—and it was actually moved by me at the conference and seconded by him. Our platform says as follows:Labor recognises the importance of the forest industries to the Australian economy and the need for their adequate environmental protection. Future development of forest industries must take place on an ecologically and economically sustainable basis, by ensuring the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy through Regional Forest Agreements.There is a key point there—`by ensuring the full implementation of the national forest policy statement and the wood and paper industry strategy through regional forest agreements'. That goes to the second point of substance that I would like to draw attention to.The great fundamental difference between those on the other side and us on this side, so far as this area is concerned, is that we have always seen the RFA process as a question of not just the balance between the environment and the economy but also ensuring that, as part of the RFA, inextricably interwoven with the RFA process, you had a commitment to industry development, a commitment to downstream processing and a commitment to value adding.The full implementation of the national forest policy statement and the wood and paper industry strategy, when we were in office, was proposed to be driven by the Wood and Paper Industry Council. Those on the other side committed themselves to that in the run-up to the 1996 election. What did they do as soon as they were elected to office? They abolished it. It was only under pressure from us in the Senate that they reinstated a wood and paper industry forum, which has effectively done nothing. So the great difference between those on the other side and us is that we are fully committed to the full implementation of the national forest policy and the full implementation of the wood and paper industry strategy because we see that as an integral part of the RFA process.The third point of substance I refer to is the notion of compensation. The compensation model which the legislation opens up is, in general terms, something that I am happy to have an open mind about and support but, on the government's own admission, this seems to require the reopening of two RFAs. It would be nice to actually have the opportunity to quietly contemplate what repercussions, if any, follow from the compensation model which the government has proposed to set up in this legislation. On its own admission, the government says, `To effect the model that we want, we need to reopen two RFAs and seek to have this compensation model reinstated into those.' What consequences follow from that approach?The amendment that I have circulated reflects those concerns, and in the brief time available to me. I might quickly take the House through the amendment itself. The amendment, while not declining to give the bill a second reading, reinforces our commitment to the principles underriding this legislation, and:notes that Regional Forest Agreements are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional community and industry development objectives for two decades;This legislation and the RFA process, which we established, seek to establish that long-term security and certainty, but it is the long-term security and certainty which has a number of facets to it—environmental, economic, social, regional and industry development. The amendment also notes that:. . . the securing of such objectives is dependent upon the policy certainty which can only come from long term bipartisan support . . . And the process, which the government has placed on this legislation, puts that effectively in jeopardy on the detail. In the letter that I read to the House earlier from the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, the council goes on to say to me in respect of the importance of the legislation:Without strong legislation or with legislation on which we cannot agree we lose some of the benefit of the RFA.So here we have the Tasmanian Industry Council stressing the importance of not just agreeing in principle but agreeing on the detail. The House is being afforded no oppor tunity to agree on that detail or even to consider that detail today. The amendment also notes our consistent support, in principle, for the legislative objectives sought by the bill. We make the point that we believe that:. . . it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this Bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the Bill, but which in fact does not and expresses concern in this context that the Bill provides no mechanism to allow the Parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA;This goes to a central point: this parliament is being asked to enact legislation which confers benefits on an RFA, sight unseen in the case of nine. So what mechanism does the bill suggest for those nine RFA agreements which have not been signed between the Commonwealth and various states? For the parliament should have cognisance of those, the parliament should satisfy itself that a future agreement is to have the same benefit as three signed agreements are to have. So there needs to be some reasonable form of giving the parliament cognisance of these not yet seen RFAs by some form of parliamentary scrutiny, by some form of parliamentary cognisance. The amendment notes that the government has effectively:. . . withdrawn plans to automatically provide financial compensation for adverse impacts if any caused by future Commonwealth action;and I have made some comments in respect of that issue of compensation, and:notes that the RFA process and underpinning legislation is inextricably interwoven with the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;This gets to the heart of the difference between those on this side and those opposite. We are absolutely committed to the full implementation of the wood and paper industry strategy and the national forest policy statement. Those on the other side are not. That is the key point of difference here, and that pervades everything in the differences between us.You could not have found a better example of where these differences are crystallised than in the respective responses of those on this side and those on the opposite side to the proposed closure of the Burnie pulp mill on 1 October later this year. The amendment goes on to say that:. . . as a consequence regrets that the Government has failed to progress the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;Having committed itself in 1996 in the run-up to the election to the full implementation of the wood and paper industry strategy, one of the first things it did in the course of the August 1996 budget was to knock over the Wood and Paper Industry Council. The amendment:condemns the Government for its failure to introduce complementary industry policy measures to ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by Government and industry commitments to investment, exports, jobs, and value adding to and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources;In particular, this amendment condemns the government for its inadequacies in this area, most adroitly highlighted by their Burnie inaction. I will formally move that amendment. My colleague the member for Denison will second it in due course. I have indicated to the House that, at the conclusion of the second reading of the bill, I propose to seek to refer this legislation to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs for consideration and an advisory report by 31 August 1998. On the basis that, given the attendance at the House today, we are unsuccessful in these endeavours, we reserve our right, consistent with what I have said, to look at amendments in detail in the other place in due course. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:(1) notes that Regional Forest Agreements are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional community and industry development objectives for two decades;(2) notes that the securing of such objectives is dependent upon the policy certainty which can only come from long term bipartisan support, and in this context the failure to consult on detail during the drafting process and bringing debate on now without providing adequate time for detailed consideration is particularly regrettable and not in the industry's long term best interests;(3) notes that the Opposition has consistently given in principle support for the legislative objectives sought by the Bill and reaffirmed such support on introduction of the Bill on 30 June 1998;(4) believes that it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this Bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the Bill, but which in fact does not and expresses concern in this context that the Bill provides no mechanism to allow the Parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA;(5) notes that the Government has withdrawn plans to automatically provide financial compensation for adverse impacts if any caused by future Commonwealth action;(6) notes that the RFA process and underpinning legislation is inextricably interwoven with the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;(7) and as a consequence regrets that the Government has failed to progress the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;(8) condemns the Government for its failure to introduce complementary industry policy measures to ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by Government and industry commitments to investment, exports, jobs, and value adding to and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources; and in particular(9) condemns the Government for failing the Burnie workers facing retrenchment as a result of its inaction referred to above".RH4KERRMr Kerr—I formally second the amendment and normally would speak at this point, but my colleague the member for Lyons has commitments and has asked me to defer. I ask that that be permitted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You are not requesting that the debate does not follow the usual course?RH4KERRMr Kerr—I do not mind how the debate is conducted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the member for Denison.10:46:006094Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is a most important bill. Once again, the Labor Party seems to be dillydallying with the lives of people in regional Australia, particu larly in timber industry areas. It is a fact that, had the Labor government been re-elected in 1996, they would still be dillydallying on regional forest agreements.What are we here for today? We have just heard an amendment moved to further muck about with the whole process of giving certainty to people, particularly those in my seat of McMillan. We are here today because we want to underpin the regional forests agreement process that this government—from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to Minister Anderson to Minister Hill to Michael Ronaldson, the parliamentary secretary, to Fran Bailey, Stewart McArthur and I—has had a direct interest in, driving this whole process to a point where we have a resolution for our community. That resolution is that for the first time they will be able to go to their bank and get some certainty about where their industry is going, where their future employment will be and where there can have some downstream processing. Only this government has given them the opportunity for certainty, job security and value adding.Had we not have had the support of the Prime Minister, particularly, and the support of the communities and our ministers and backbenchers, helping to drive this whole process, we would not be here today debating a resolution of these matters. The community, through their industry, have asked us to support the regional forests agreements through legislation. Only this government has been able to deliver. It seems that only the Labor Party is now opposed to us delivering on this very important issue for regional Australia.It is particularly important for the seat of Gippsland, Peter McGauran's seat, and certainly important for the seat of McMillan. Why is it so important to me? Gippsland has been through a most difficult time. You have heard about the drought we have experienced over the last three years in Gippsland. You have now seen the flooding rains that caused the most disastrous floods in east Gippsland. The impact of the rain on the environment on Gippsland has been catastrophic, to say the least, in an area where we normally have gentle and eloquent rainfall that makes beautiful milk.What has been the one consistency in this debate? Out of all the problems that we have been through, what has been the one sure-fire thing that supports jobs, families, communities, small businesses and everybody else who makes up our regional communities? It has been the timber industry. In my electorate of McMillan alone, there are 8,000 people directly or indirectly affected by issues of the timber and forest industries. That includes the people who sell the fuel. That includes the people who sell the clothes. That includes all those people who work within our communities and go to our primary schools, our private schools and our public schools. It is all those people who are active in, have concerns for and make their living from the timber industry.This government has always been about families. Families throughout Australia are no different from the families that work down in Gippsland. You may only hear about us when we have got a problem, but let me tell you that every day we are out there and we are working we are creating new opportunities in this value-adding forest industry. At the same time, this government has delivered the best reserve process for the protection of our forests. The most important thing we can do for our future and our children is to protect those forests so they can be used for the benefit not only of those who are running a business out of them but of those who want them to be the lungs of the Australian nation—and perhaps the lungs of South-East Asia with the devastation that is going on in forest industries there at this time.The whole issue is a matter of national importance. It is not just about hugging trees but also about people. It is not just about the legislation we introduce but about people and their families and how they operate in a regional community. I want to read you something that the last government had to process. Barry Cunningham, former member for McMillan, like me, was dedicated to the timber industry but was part of another government. I read from a community re sponse in regard to Mr Cunningham from the branch newsletter of a timber industry group:How can we afford to stop work and go to Canberra again—this is about the logging protest—just to do the same as we have done before? Helen told me Barry Cunningham had no choice but to call us to rally as he was not being listened to as the member for McMillan and we need to show our support.I did not believe her so I rang Barry Cunningham and to my astonishment he spoke to me and told me to consider the exercise as an investment in our future.In other words, he called the community of Gippsland to Canberra, to surround this building and to tell his own party how important the issue was to people in Gippsland. If the same thing had happened to me, Michael Ronaldson or Fran Bailey, I know we would have done the same thing. But it did not because the moment we arrived here there was a round table discussion about the issue which the Prime Minister chaired. We moved from precept to precept, line to line until we got to today's legislation.It is important to so many people right across Victoria, from Ballarat through McEwen right into McMillan and out into Gippsland, that we provide the wood, the chairs, the furniture and the exports. We are providing the pulp that is used for paper. These are people who provide the pulp and work in the industries—1,000 people at Australian Paper—that this government has also supported by introducing anti-dumping legislation after the failure of the former government'BV5ADAMSMr Adams—Much too late.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—The Liberal Party members worked closely with the CMFEU. The Michael Ronaldsons, the Fran Baileys and the Russell Broadbents are the ones who took up the charge on behalf of the union movement.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—He's got a ticket.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—So where were you? Firstly, you were not listening; secondly, you did not care about the union movement; and, thirdly, your Prime Minister, Paul Keating, put his hand on the issue of the timber indus try and it blew his hand off. He abused the workers as he walked up here to Parliament House one morning. We all saw it on television. I was the candidate who cared at that time and I am the member who cares now. Every logging truck that goes up my road makes a difference to the people who live in my communities. They are the people I am going to support.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I know you also have an interest in forest industries. It is those forest industries that have been our one stable certainty. Those industries support the post offices. We have so many post offices because we have grown jobs in rural Australia at a time when we have suffered drought, an economic downturn and a downturn in commodity prices. There are a number of regional members from the Liberal and National parties out there who not only listen to their communities but have said to them we will deliver. But, to our shock and surprise, we now find that the Labor Party actually opposes this legislation.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Not true.MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—No, you actually oppose this legislation in four or five areas. You found out that we had gone, as a matter of urgency, to our minister and told him we had to bring this legislation forward because it was very important not only that we have a regional forest agreement but also that when people go to their banks they could say, `We have a regional forest agreement and the Australian government, the Howard government, is backing us.' So it is assured. There is certainty. There is job security. We are the party that is growing jobs in regional Australia. For 13 years the Labor Party dillydallied on these issues. They did nothing for the green movement. They did nothing to support jobs. They did nothing for certainty.Of course there was chaos by the time of the run-up to the 1996 election campaign. Of course we were going to be elected because people had had enough. Of course these blue-collar workers said, `At least Russell Broadbent is going to go in there and go to bat for us.' I know there are members on the other side of this House in the Australian Labor Party who agree with every word I am saying. They know that their own party does not want to support this legislation and they want to lie doggo until after the election campaign is over. They have said they are going to oppose it in the Senate. You have seen them dillydally by moving this spurious amendment. That is what it is all about.When the members come in here to vote, you will be named as members who voted against job security in timber and forest industries. I say to Labor Party members today: think very carefully before you oppose this legislation because it has had a lot of time and a lot of effort put into it. My own state government has put millions of dollars into this. The federal government has put $400 million into making this process work. There are 400 people who worked up here trying to make this process work. In the Australian community as a whole—whether people are dark green, light green or mid green—there is no difference, we are all green, but we all want opportunities for our generation, the generation after that and the generation after that. And that is what we have delivered in Australia.I believe the member for Denison (Mr Kerr) is driving this because he does not want this legislation to go through. He wants at any time to be able to walk in on any situation—if you ever happen to be in government again—and say, `We are creating a new reserve and we are wiping out the timber industry in this area.' That is exactly what Bob Carr is doing at the moment—and I dare say they are working in tandem. This is not a last hurrah for the conservation movement. The conservation movement has been involved in this whole process very closely. The real thinkers know that this Howard government has delivered on forest industry issues.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Hear, hear!MT4Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENT—It is good to see that Michael Ronaldson has entered the chamber because he has been one of the driving supports behind what we have done. Do not think that we did not take time to give attention and to put genuine spirit into this legislation. There has not been a time when this government has not put in the energy, the effort and the hours to make the difference. I know I must finish now, but I want to repeat that this is an important issue to my community and the communities in regional Australia. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this and I look forward to a response from the member for Lyons (Mr Adams).10:59:006097Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I was disappointed with the way the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 was introduced. Just dumping it on the table at the last minute is not the way to get bipartisan agreement for what should be one of the most important agreements signed in Australia. The government should have tried to get bipartisan support on this bill. The government has failed to get this legislation through, as it promised, before the end of June. It is now rushing the bill through the House of Representatives so it can say during the election campaign that it has passed the bill through the lower house, but it is only going to serve a political purpose.What is at issue is that Australia imports $2.5 billion worth of forest and forest products per year. The government's role is to assist, drive, motivate or even insist upon using the levers of government to have industry replace those imports with domestic product and more value added exports. Before the regional forest agreements can be properly implemented, there needs to be in place a functioning wood and paper industry strategy. Without such a strategy, we will once again be chasing capital offshore to value add our wood products in other countries.With all this on the table, it is important that the regional forest agreement is watertight and can be used as a basis to start developing the wood and paper strategy that will lead to world best practice in the forest industry in Australia. Tasmania is in a unique position to lead the world in forestry. Much of our industry is close to best practice now. It needs some minor adjustments and some major commitments by the existing private sector so we can compete for investment to build on what we already have and we can compete on the basis that we can produce the best timber in a manner that is ecologically sustainable, well managed and capable to fit into a certifi cation scheme equal to anything in Europe or the rest of the world.I would like to point out to Senator Newman, who had the audacity to comment on my column in the Advocate yesterday in which she strayed from the truth about Labor's record in forestry: where were you 15 years ago when the forestry industry was forced into looking at itself critically? Where were you when the workers and their representatives started to put in place the bones for the sustainable use of forests? Swanning around Canberra like you are doing now, I guess. You were nowhere to be seen helping the workers or the forest industry communities solve the problems that needed to be solved.I was there working with the workers all the way through to make sure that Tasmania was not left out. I was on the phone to the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, insisting that Tasmania's position was put clearly and that ridiculous forest coups were not put into the forestry reserves. I did not hear a murmur from Senator Newman then.She was wrong on another point as well. Labor members did visit the north-west coast during Tioxide's closure. But Tioxide telegraphed its closure long before it actually closed, and Labor helped fund a study to look at retraining the work force which led to the setting up of community initiatives to develop jobs. This was done in 1992. The results were put in place in 1993, and I do not remember Senator Newman being there at all. Labor then used the Working Nation program to help those people displaced into other work and to set up schemes in Burnie to develop new industries. By 1995, everything that could be done had been done.What did the Liberals do about the paper mill closure at Burnie? They announced a few measly dollars after the mill had announced closure. They could not even send the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore). They had to send the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Fahey, and Senator Newman, and they could not open a paper bag between them.As I said in my article to the people on the north-west coast—a good half of whom live in Lyons—I would be prepared to work with the Liberals to work with the workers and the company to ensure that we keep jobs in the forest industry in the state. This also includes keeping the paper mill open from October. What does it take to keep those paper making machines open? Who is finding out? It is certainly not the government, state or federal, in power at the moment. Without a strategy, the agreement is hollow and helps no-one.We have to work with a single voice—workers, politicians, unions and the community—if this is going to work. I remember the forestry rallies in Tasmania. I marched with the Premier of the day, a Liberal, and my opposition Labor colleagues, along with state Labor and Liberal colleagues. I have a photograph on my wall to prove that. Senator Newman was not there. It happened in her city and she was not even there.We need the industry development strategy. We want to move away from the `harvest and sell Australia' syndrome and put in place a `harvest and make in Australia' strategy. If we do not do something today, we will not have a wood and paper industry in Australia in 10 years time. There will be nothing left. Too many people have put years of their lives into this industry to throw it away now. They have come from all political complexions too.You, on the other side, threw it away once with resource security legislation. Do not do it again just for the sake of political one-upmanship. All the players in the industry want this to happen in Tasmania. There is a basic agreement on that. We are almost there; it is almost right. It has taken years, but we have almost got there. Please, everybody forget their differences and help us develop an industry program which is in the best interests of the country and the best interests of my state. I support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith).11:06:006098Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I was present in this chamber in October 1992 when the national forest policy statement was released. There was one slight difference: I happened to be sitting on the other side of the chamber in opposition.MT4BROADBENTMr Broadbent—A big difference.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEY—A very big difference, as the member for McMillan has just said to me. From October 1992 through to July 1998 is a very long time. It has taken a very long time to get where we are with the legislation on the regional forest agreements simply because those members who are now sitting on the opposition benches, who had the opportunity when they were in government to quicken this process and provide security for those important jobs in regional areas, used delay tactics the whole time.I am absolutely stunned to hear the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) get up here this morning and introduce even more delaying tactics. That is to be condemned. Everyone here on this side of the House—the members of the government and in particular the members here who have fought so hard to bring this legislation forward—are absolutely dismayed, and we condemn the actions of the member for Perth.It is with an enormous sense of pride that I stand here as a member of this government to speak on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill before us today. I do so on behalf of the thousands of families in my electorate who will benefit directly and indirectly from this legislation. The Central Highlands regional forest agreement was signed in March of this year by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Premier of Victoria. This represents a great success for all who have fought long and hard to achieve this very balanced and fair outcome.The RFA legislation before us today is the last step in providing security of resource for the local timber industry and the ecologically sustainable management of our native forests. The timber industry in McEwen is made up of workers involved in the planting, preservation, harvesting and processing of timber and timber by-products. However, there are many other local people who transport the timber, service the machinery, provide specialist equipment and monitor the use of the resources of the region who also form part of this great industry.It is all of these local workers and the many varied small business people and their respective family members who are the greatest beneficiaries of this legislation. Local communities from Yarra Junction, Powelltown, Narbethong, Buxton and Marysville through to Eildon, Alexandra, Yea, Seymour and many others will at first notice the more visible benefits of this legislation. For example, the additional direct local timber jobs created in the Central Highlands are estimated to be more than 300 initially and many hundreds more in the future.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—How many?JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEY—Three hundred initially spreading right throughout, especially in Victoria. Communities will also see the fact that there has been a 64 per cent increase of Victoria's regional forest reserves which means that another 116,000 hectares, making a total of 297,000 hectares, of the Central Highlands forest will be protected by a world-class, comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. Furthermore, people will see how they will benefit from the Central Highlands $27.6 million joint Commonwealth-state package for a hardwood timber industry development and restructuring program, committing Victoria to supply a minimum of 345,000 cubic metres of sawlogs per annum for the next 20 years.That is where we get a sense of security for this industry for the first time. Did you hear the words I said? I said for the next 20 years. Up until this time people have perhaps been talking about the next six months, if they were lucky. Because of the efforts of this government, we are talking about a sense of security for the next 20 years. That means security of employment for workers, security of trade for small businesses and security of lifestyle for families who have chosen to live in the beautiful districts in the Central Highlands. They will feel the direct and indirect benefits of a secure forest management system that has been sought by all local stakeholders for well over a decade.Those involved in tourism and recreational activities have also been concerned about the maintenance of landscape areas and continued access to forest areas. The RFA legislation also gives them certainty and security. Conservation groups were concerned about possible exploitation of forests for short-term gains, losing biodiversity, old growth forests or wilderness values. The Central Highlands RFA has replaced their fears with certainty and security.Land-holders wanted to see more native species planted on public and private land while further developing farm forestry initiatives. They were also seeking a shared use of forest areas by timber, tourism and recreation industries and had a concern about preserving the water quality. Again, the RFA legislation secures these concerns. Local shire councils such as Murrindindi, Mitchell and Yarra Ranges wish to maintain and enhance physical infrastructure while capitalising on the economic benefits of timber industry development. This legislation secures their concerns.Aboriginal people wanted to be involved in the development of forest management plans in order to have areas of cultural significance protected and valued. They felt improved training of Aboriginal people for employment in forest management would be beneficial for their community and the forest. This legislation secures these opportunities for local indigenous groups. Even the broad Central Highlands community of 280,000 people beyond those nearly 4,000 people directly employed in regional forest based industries and the thousands of others related in the service industries consider that the timber industry, the recreational access and the aesthetic values of the Central Highlands need to be preserved for future generations. This legislation exactly secures that outcome.In my electorate communities from Diamond Creek and Hurstbridge to Whittlesea, Kinglake, Broadford and Seymour will all feel the security that this RFA legislation will bring directly in its benefits for employment and small business to the enhanced community confidence that encourages new investment, enabling more families to settle in the area and new businesses to open. In other words, from the perspective of the communities in my electorate, this RFA legislation as it applies to the Central Highlands is no less than an anchor of security that allows families to plan their futures with far more confidence and certainty than life without this legislation would allow. Industry workers and local communities have been extremely patient for a very long time. Together we are proud to have brought about the outcomes implicit in the Central Highlands agreement and implicit within this legislation before the House today.I have run out of time in this debate today, but I would conclude my remarks with just a few more thoughts. As I said earlier, I am simply appalled to hear members of the government stand up in this place today and again suggest even more delaying tactics.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—The former government.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEY—The former government, I am sorry. That the opposition, and in particular the member for Perth, has put forward these sorts of delaying tactics is disgraceful. I speak on behalf of all those people throughout all the timber regions in this country and especially those of the Central Highlands region: we will not tolerate these sorts of tactics. We are here today wanting this legislation brought forward. We want it brought forward because we want to provide the certainty and security that only this legislation and this government have been able to achieve for all interested groups, including the environment groups as well as all members of the timber industry. It is with great pride that I commend this legislation to the House.11:16:006100Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The starting point for this debate on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 is to recognise that securing long-term confidence of this industry is dependent upon policy certainty that can come only from bipartisan support. The starting point of this debate must stem from the fact that, after more than two years in government, the minister last week brought forward legislation without any consultation with the opposition and, plainly, with inadequate consultation with interested parties, both on the environment and industry sides. And now the parliament is being asked to rush this legislation through without the prospect of its examination by a committee of this House, and to do so in a framework which can be regarded only as playing to the political gallery without any respect being given to the serious issues that underlie this legislation. The objects of the RFA process are twofold: firstly, to secure protection of the environment and, secondly, to provide security for jobs. But, in this government legislation, the key element that is missing—in fact, it is completely ignored—is any industry strategy. The government seems blind to the fact that the Australian community will not tolerate the prospect of the export of largely unprocessed forest products, especially whole logs and woodchips, whilst our own manufacturing sector is in serious decline and in competition with imported products sourced from forests which are not in any way managed on an ecologically sustainable basis.How can speaker after speaker on the government side stand and pat themselves on the back about giving confidence and security to an industry when, in my own home state of Tasmania, the very instant that resource security legislation was secured we find a massive disinvestment in the sacking of hundreds of workers from downstream processing in Burnie and this government standing idly by, condemning Labor's proposals to do something about an industry strategy to protect those people in the work force in Burnie who shortly will be losing their jobs as a result of this government's irresponsibility?Look also to the environmental side of this package. This bill aims to remove Commonwealth legislative control from forestry operations in every area of Australia covered by regional forest agreements. Clause 5 of the bill states that the effect of the RFA forestry operations must be disregarded for the purposes of sections of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.The difficulty arises because the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, the government's own proposal currently before the parliament, will replace those various acts, but not the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. So the RFA bill itself may then require consequential amendment. Also, with the haste of this process, it is interesting to note that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill itself in the parliament already makes mention of the Regional Forest Agreements Act that is proposed in division 4, clauses 38 to 41. So the various proposals in this bill seem to mirror and duplicate quite unnecessarily proposals that are already before the parliament.This bill has been introduced in haste not as a result of complex consultations with all affected interests but rather out of the desperate realisation that this government had not met undertakings it had given two years ago to progress these measures with the bipartisan support of the opposition. It has come up with a bill which does have very serious deficiencies. We have given in-principle support to these measures, but we have flagged in our second reading amendment where those deficiencies lie.Let us not fool ourselves that those deficiencies have been identified only by the conservation movement. I have in my hand a letter addressed to my shadow parliamentary colleague the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith), the shadow minister for resources, and me from the CFMEU. The CFMEU is, of course, the principal union representing timber workers right across Australia. What does that union say? It calls on us to oppose this legislation unless it is substantially amended. I will read the concluding paragraph of this letter. It states:In conclusion the Union does not support the Bill in its present form as it removes the Commonwealth from its responsibilities to fully implement the National Forest Policy Statement. That is, not only establishing a Comprehensive Adequate and Representative (C.A.R.) reserve system and resource security but also a world class ecologically sustainable value adding forest and forest products industry. The Commonwealth by passing the Bill in its present form will walk away with the job, in the Union's view, "only half done".That comes from the principal union that represents forest workers. Yet we have all this sanctimonious back patting coming forth as if this bill has had widespread community support.When this measure was, without notice, sprung on this parliament in the last week and brought forward to today, my shadow col league and I sent out to all interested industry and conservation groups a note saying, `Whilst we only have a week, we would appreciate your comments.' So far we have received 38 detailed submissions. Let me go through those 38 detailed submissions very briefly. Four of those 38 submissions support the bill as it is drafted, 19 oppose it outright and 15 say not to pass it unless it is substantially amended. What is this nonsense about this being the product of consultation and support across the Australian community? When the principal union representing timber workers in Australia is one of the groups that say we should oppose this bill unless it is substantially amended, where is your virtue? There is none.The most vigorous reaction has come from Western Australia, which is hardly surprising. Look at the comments that have been made by people from such diverse organisations as the Shire of Denmark, the Western Australian Forest Alliance and the Conservation Council of Western Australia. I choose to read just a small part, because of the very limited time, from a submission that was sent forward by Dr Helen Henderson. She is concerned because this bill would not only have retrospective application to the already signed RFAs, of which this parliament can at least be imputed to have knowledge, but also is presumably intended to apply to RFAs yet to come into existence, no matter how ill-fitting they are in relation to the objectives of this legislation, the scoping agreement settled previously by the former Labor administration and states, and the special deal that was done by the current government for the Premier of Western Australia. She says, about her qualifications:I am a key stakeholder representative of a national parks association on the official Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement Stakeholder Reference Group.At page 2 she says:At this stage, the Western Australian public is considering the RFA public consultation document Towards a regional forestry agreement for the south-west forest region of Western Australia , a paper to assist consultation. This document contains three RFA options, all of which many key stakeholders totally reject at this stage. These include nationally recognised biodiversity scientists, local authorities, forest based industry associations and conservation groups.That leads me to the next point. There is a genuine and proper concern in this parliament not to give the executive power to act in a legislative capacity. We do not act properly as representatives of this parliamentary process by signing away to the executive blank cheques, particularly when we have no knowledge of what will come forward in those future draft RFA processes.That is why the amendment moved by my colleague and seconded by me says that it believes it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the bill but which in fact does not. It expresses concern, in this context, that the bill provides no mechanism to allow parliament to review the adequacy of future RFAs. There is widespread concern at the prospective signing of an RFA in Western Australia. I take it no further than that. Both my shadow colleague for resources and I are very acutely aware, however, of the deep feeling in the Western Australian community. We have publicly expressed our concern about the process and the way in which that process appears to be going quite off the rails in Western Australia.The process has not concluded. The public consultation process is still open; it has been extended. But I put this parliament on notice that we do not accept the proposition that, not knowing what may come forward in the future, we should sign up to an approval of a document that has not yet come into existence. That is wrong in principle and that is so too with the other RFAs which might be flawed in their creation in other jurisdictions.I come also to the point of compensation. There has been considerable debate in the Australian community about the multilateral investment agreement. That is an agreement which, if it were to be signed, would give to multinational corporations the opportunity to sue in Australian courts were they, for environmental or other reasons, precluded from pursuing their objectives. The argument that is advanced is that that passes away sovereignty from the Australian parliament to others outside this nation. Why should we buy a pig in the poke in relation to future agreements not yet cited, made potentially between executives, which command less than a majority in this House or the support of the Senate—there could be minority governments in the future; these are plausible scenarios—and which are not subject to parliamentary review and yet give rise to substantial financial obligations to multinational corporations? What would we be holding our hands to?Let us look at the Tasmanian RFA. It says that the agreement is intended to require the Commonwealth to pay compensation for any action taken:. . . to protect the environment and heritage values in native forests and in connection therewith the protection of:(a) CAR Values; or(b) Old Growth forest; or(c) wilderness; or(d) any Priority Species; or(e) any Endangered Forest Community; or(f) National Estate Values; or(g) World Heritage values; or(h) Wild Rivers . . . If the Commonwealth takes any action during the period of this agreement which is inconsistent with any provision of this agreement and with a foreseeable and probable consequence, then compensation would flow. But, of course, we do not know yet what will be the final form of compensation measures, because this government has said that it wants to go back and change the RFAs that have already been signed. So RFAs are not sacrosanct now; they are going to be changed. RFAs are going to be altered because their compensation measures do not mesh with what is intended in this bill. We do not know what is intended. We have no measure of that.What is known is that the government has indicated that the commencement of this RFA legislation, whenever it passes the parliament, will be delayed. It intends to allow examination of existing RFAs with regard to compensation provisions to ensure consistency. Of course, those negotiations have not yet been timetabled. So we are being asked to have a pig in a poke. We are saying to this House that there is an opportunity for a committee of this House to examine these questions that remain unanswered. We are not coming back for some three or four weeks. There is no prospect of this being passed in the Senate. Why not use that time constructively to get over these problems and to secure the kind of understanding across the community which would go to enabling the opposition to give the bill wholehearted bipartisan support?11:31:006103Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I support this Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . I support it on behalf of my constituents throughout Eden-Monaro who are desperately looking forward to some security when it comes to the native forest hardwood timber industry. They are desperately seeking security because they have had nothing but insecurity for the past decade or so, particularly under the former federal Labor government's disastrous timber industry policies.I remember visiting the Harris-Daishowa woodchip mill in the lead-up to the 1996 federal election. They proudly showed me a document, signed a few years earlier by the Prime Minister of the day, Bob Hawke, and the Premier of New South Wales of the day, Nick Greiner. That document was a wood supply agreement that guaranteed certain wood supplies up to the year 2009. One would think that a document signed by both the Prime Minister of Australia and the Premier of New South Wales would be worth something. One would think, particularly if you were heading up a company intending to invest millions and millions of dollars in our industry, that a document like that would provide some security for that investment. One would think, particularly if you were a person employed in that industry, that a document like that would provide some job security. One would think, particularly if you were a business in a community that relied heavily on the timber industry for your wellbeing, that a document like that would provide some security for your business. But no. Under the previous federal Labor government, and now, under the current New South Wales Labor government, that document meant nothing. What it did mean was no security, because that document was not worth the paper it was printed on.No wonder we have seen a great deal of hesitancy by business to invest new money in this industry. How can we blame them? Imagine the shareholders of Harris-Daishowa in Japan. They have a document signed by the Prime Minister and by the Premier, but it is not worth anything at all. What are they going to do when making further investment decisions about Australia? They are probably going to go elsewhere, and you cannot blame them. That is one stark example of why we need this legislation that we are debating today. This legislation provides that security. Without it, the regional forest agreement process is potentially a sop to the industry, with the extreme green agenda prevailing yet again, as it always did under the previous federal Labor government.Although both sides of this House support the national forest policy statement and the regional forest agreement process, the reality that has occurred in some areas—particularly in New South Wales—shows why there is cynicism about the RFAs and why we need this legislation.We heard the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith), in his contribution to the debate, proudly saying that the Labor Party supports the national forest policy statement and the regional forest agreement process—a scientific process. But I have to ask: where was the member for Perth and where was the Labor Party at a federal level when their mate Bob Carr was going about ignoring the RFA process in Eden in my electorate? Where was he? He was nowhere to be seen or heard. There was nothing from the Labor Party federally, as Bob Carr, in the middle of the Eden RFA—not even in the middle of it; probably about 20 per cent of the way through—went off and declared a whole heap of new national parks.There is nothing wrong with national parks, but the RFA process says that it is a scientific process and you have to do a scientific assessment of the forest areas, the existing national parks and some private land—all sorts of things—before you make decisions. He did not wait until that scientific work was done, as was required. He pre-empted the process and thus made it almost impossible to get an outcome that could restore some of the jobs lost as a result of the decisions made by the previous federal Labor government—decisions such as stopping the export woodchip licences, which took away from my constituents in Eden-Monaro so many jobs in Eden, Bombala, Bega and many other communities. The Howard government put those export woodchip licences back in place soon after we came to government. But, unfortunately, the damage was done. Contracts were lost to elsewhere and it will take a long time to get back the confidence of those clients.This legislation is probably more important in Eden-Monaro than in other areas as we have seen very starkly how so-called government contracts have been torn up at the political whim of Labor politicians to satisfy their urban green constituency. I have an enormous distrust of the Carr Labor government and their role in the RFA process, and my constituents in Eden-Monaro share that distrust. Who can blame them when you see his performance so far—locking up areas before the scientific work was done and pre-empting the final decisions?But the Labor Party, interestingly, is having several bets on this. On the RFA options for the Eden area, it is having a whole variety of bets. The New South Wales Labor Party, via its government, is backing an option that would see further cuts in quotas for sawlogs and pulp logs. That means more job losses. Another sector of the Labor Party—via the union, the CFMEU—is backing an industry-union option that would keep the current job levels only if certain forest protocols were changed. That means fighting through the EPA and various other people at a state level who have been working very actively against the forest industry, so the chances of that occurring are unsure at best. Certainly, if that sort of option were going to be taken as a final option, you would have to get those protocols changed; otherwise we would be seeing more job losses.A further sector of the Labor Party, the South Coast Trades and Labour Council, is backing the extreme green option that would absolutely decimate the current industry. So we have these three bets within the options from within different parts of the Labor Party, all trying to satisfy different sections of their party—from the Right to the Left—and the people of Eden-Monaro are the ones who are losing out as we go through it.Where is federal Labor on this? People from federal Labor are saying nothing about this. I think they are not saying anything because they are pretty embarrassed. They are embarrassed about what they did to my constituents in their last few years in government. They are embarrassed by the number of jobs that they just threw out down there and the communities that they wrecked, the communities that are gradually rebuilding but which will only grow again under a decent RFA outcome.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—With this legislation.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—That is right. As the member for Ballarat points out, only with this legislation will they be provided with the security for investment that was never provided by the former Labor government. I am very pleased to have been part of getting this legislation to this point. I am very proud to pat myself on the back—despite what the member for Denison (Mr Kerr) was waffling on about before—because we are providing that security.I reject the further dithering of the Labor Party. It does not know where it is on this. It is in every little camp around the place, trying to satisfy every little bit of its constituency. It is under extreme pressure from the extreme greens. It is not concerned about the jobs that have been lost in my electorate. It is not concerned about the people I am speaking for in my electorate who were decimated by the previous Labor government under policies which saw so many of them thrown out of work and their children left with no hope for the future. We are putting some security back in there and this legislation will do it.11:40:006105Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I object to the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 for a number of reasons which I will outline. Principal among them is that, firstly, it falsely assumes that the RFA processes have been or will be conducted properly and that, therefore, the outcomes of those processes will be broadly accepted by the community. That is clearly a false assumption, one that I challenged in a recent submission on the WA RFA public consultation paper.I feel particularly strongly about this because I was one of the signatories to the original agreement between the state and federal governments. I am appalled that the options outlined in the recently released paper in my own state, presumably to form the basis for an RFA, deviate so far from the original intentions of the national forest policy statement. This bill would do nothing about that problem.In particular, in my state only three `options' are presented. None of them seems likely to achieve the conservation values that are fundamental to the original agreement. How can any of them be accepted by the community? What is envisaged in all three options is the substantial and unsustainable destruction of old-growth forest. This is definitely not the outcome that was anticipated by the premiers at the time—me included—or the Prime Minister when it was established.I have also watched with increasing alarm in Western Australia as a so-called `consultation' has proceeded without the input of local conservation groups and the relevant scientific expertise; they have simply been excluded. Since these agreements are expected to bind all the parties and set policy for the next 20 years, I think this `failure to seek and achieve widespread community input and support'—as I put it in my submission—is likely to prove fatal to any future planning.Even those who are only superficially acquainted with WA forests and their management will be clear that the options contained in the latest report do not provide for a comprehensive, adequate and representative forest conservation estate, as was required in the original agreement. So how can we sign off this legislation, not knowing what is going to occur in a state like Western Australia? Old-growth forest in Western Australia is already under a very severe challenge from the timber industry in which the major companies have been very unwilling so far to undertake sufficient investment in plantational alternatives. Indeed, the subsidy inherent in the low royalties charged by the state can be seen to inhibit such investment.One of the continuing flaws in the proposed RFA process in WA is the inclusion of road and stream reserves, which enables the state government to meet the reserve criteria in a completely phoney way. This was—when we were in government—and still is unsatisfactory. It means that, while small and degraded areas of forest will be preserved, largely as tourist window-dressing, substantially untouched and aesthetically superb areas such as the Giblett block, which I know well and which is on the interim register of the National Estate, will almost certainly be logged.The replacement of such forest with regrowth ignores the importance of old-growth forest as a nursery for biological diversity, and irreversibly—and I underline that—destroys the cultural and aesthetic characteristics so loved by Western Australians, including the coach of the Eagles, Mick Malthouse, who came out on this recently; a businesswoman, Liz Davenport; and a former Liberal, Dame Rachel Cleland. It is not just the extreme green movement, which we heard being denigrated by the previous speaker.Public opinion in Western Australia has consistently opposed the logging of old-growth forest, especially for purposes such as woodchipping and charcoal logs. The people of Western Australia are concerned, as I am, that we are logging old-growth forests—and these options continue it—without proper regard for their value, especially for future generations. This report, which is to lead to the WA RFA, is deficient in several important respects, all of which, I might say, appear designed—as this bill is—to avoid the close scrutiny of interested citizens. In other states, at least maps and detailed descriptions of the areas to be reserved and those to be logged were made available. Western Australians are apparently to be kept in the dark about the specifics. In this options report, there are no maps, and specific forest blocks are not named, although they are well known to Western Australians. The government in Western Australia are apparently trying to avoid mobilising opposition which they know is certain once blocks such as Giblett, Jane, Gardner, Sharp, Hilliger and Hawke, to name but a few, are identified as candidates for logging. It is not made clear in the report whether any of the options outlined are ecologically sustainable or on what scientific basis they might be assessed. There is, in general, a dearth of data in these reports and a dearth of argument about biodiversity, heritage and other core values, which were supposed to be respected. Also, there has not been a careful and objective assessment of the employment consequences of the stated options or any strategy to deal with any structural unemployment as there has been, for example, in New South Wales and Tasmania.At the outset, both state and Commonwealth governments recognised that there would need to be financial provision and planning for structural adjustment since some scaling back of the native timber industry was inevitable. This is to be provided in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria but apparently not in WA, since there is no mention of structural adjustment in the options paper. This clearly signals either the intention to continue what is clearly an unsustainable level of exploitation of native forests or the desire to maximise the threat to, and hence the objection from, those who may stand to lose employment without such adjustment—and I suspect the latter.At the same time, the economic and employment values associated with other industries such as tourism and recreation, and the opportunities that could be provided through agroforestry, are not given any serious attention by the authors of the report. There are also considerable grounds for suspicion about the accuracy of both the definitions and the measurement of some of the key targets and values—problems which were evident during the time of the former federal government and which do not appear to have been remedied in this options paper and, presumably, would not be in the final RFA.The result of all of this is that any remaining forest of high commercial value—and, incidentally, almost always of high conservation value—is likely to be open to clear-felling and woodchipping and not to any value adding employment. Those objections are clear in Western Australia, but they apply to all future agreements as well. We know the deficiencies in these options in my own state, yet we are being asked to sign off on this and others that we have not seen.This bill assumes that without parliamentary scrutiny the management agencies in the various states will do exactly what they are legally required to do—I suspect that that will not always be so; there is no guarantee of it. For example, in my own state, in recent court action, the Department of Conservation and Land Management argued explicitly that it was not bound by the Environmental Protection Act or the Wildlife Conservation Act and, sadly, the Supreme Court agreed. So they can do whatever they like with our own conservation and wildlife acts. In WA, at least, compliance with laws and regulations would appear to be discretionary. They will be removing the Commonwealth controls as well, if this legislation were to be passed.In addition, in this legislation the native forest industry has been offered very wide ranging exemptions from national laws on heritage, environmental protection and so on. In other words, this bill not only locks us into values that are already under challenge in some parts of this country, including in my own state, but also denies the possibility of taking into account any advances in scientific thinking about biodiversity and the damaging effects of logging, for example, and clear-felling.When these agreements were signed initially, when the national forest policy was signed up to, it was never envisaged—and I underline the words `never envisaged'—that the Commonwealth would abrogate all power and responsibility for forest conservation and the timber industry to the states. That simply was not contemplated. This legislation would make the termination of any of these agreements virtually impossible, no matter what the circumstances, and, as we have heard already, it would probably require massive compensation to an already heavily subsidised industry. In my view, it represents not only a further capitulation by this government to very narrow vested interests but also a failure to provide for the future for the plantation industry generally, for agroforestry, for the wood and paper industries. These have been completely absent from the government's thinking. At the same time, the legislation further erodes environmental protection measures and increases the wholesale forest clearance for low grade exports such as woodchips and whole unprocessed logs—something the union now objects to, quite sensibly. It is effectively exporting our heritage and our jobs. What we need are independent reviews by this parliament and others of each regional forest agreement to determine the extent to which they meet the Commonwealth's national and international commitments and obligations and the intentions of the original agreements.11:51:006107Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . The national forest policy statement, endorsed by Commonwealth, state and territory governments, sets broad goals for the management of Australia's native forests. It provides the framework for resolution of conservation, forest industry and community expectations for Australia's forests. The blueprint for these goals is the result of comprehensive regional assessments of the environmental, economic and social values of Australia's forests. These regional forest agreements, which have yet to be finalised in my state, are the product of these assessments by state, territory and Commonwealth governments. The Western Australian regional forest agreement covers much of my own electorate in the state's south-west and Great Southern. These forests are unique and deserve the legislative protection that the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 will provide.The south-west forests are home to a diverse range of flora and fauna. Over 240 species of mammals, reptiles, birds, frogs and fish live in the region's jarrah forests, while 230 different species inhabit the karri forest. Many animals that are now extinct or under threat in other parts of the country, like the numbat and the ringtail wallaby, still survive in these forests.Equally important to the forests of the south-west is the continued viability of forestry industries on which the livelihood of many members of my electorate depend. These industries range from timber production, including furniture, outdoor furniture and joinery, to bee-keeping, seed collection and tourism.These forests are a major tourist attraction to the region, attracting an estimated 2.4 million visitor trips between 1995 and 1996. The total expenditure from tourists visiting the south-west in that period was estimated to be some $250 million a year, and $70 million a year from day trippers alone. Also important to the south-west are the hardwood and softwood industries, which directly or indirectly employ more than 20,000 people and have an annual turnover estimated at some $850 million a year. Given the importance of these forests to the lives of so many people in the south-west, it is essential that the process of determining the Western Australian regional forest agreement be comprehensive. For that reason, the state and Commonwealth governments have ensured that all stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute to the regional forest agreement process. This has included a stakeholder reference group, public open days in towns throughout the south-west and Great Southern and the release of a public consultation paper.Some members of the community have criticised aspects of the WA regional forest agreement consultation process, voicing their concern that there has been insufficient time to consider the public consultation paper. The government has listened to that criticism, and both Commonwealth and state ministers recently announced their decision to extend the date for the WA regional forest agreement submissions up until the end of July.Regional forest agreements are designed to provide a blueprint for the future management of our forests and the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry. As industry and environmental groups are concerned that future governments may walk away from such agreements, this bill provides the legislative backing to ensure that all groups have confidence in the long-term future of Australia's forests. State, territory and Commonwealth governments have undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the values of our forests to ensure the final outcome is based on the best scientific advice available, rather than emotional argument. The process for assessing this scientific advice has covered areas such as biodiversity, old growth, wilderness, National Estate and the full range of economic, social and cultural values in the south-west and Great Southern areas in my electorate.During the assessment process, data on these matters has been extensively reviewed and verified by a range of scientists and experts. When the WA regional forest agreement is finally announced, this bill will ensure that both industry and environmental groups are confident that the forests of the south-west and Great Southern will be protected by Commonwealth legislation. This will ensure that the Commonwealth will not be able to agree to watering down any termination or compensation provisions of the regional forest agreement without future legislative amendment.The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 provides certainty for the future of Australia's forests. That certainty is essential for future investment, enabling the forest industry to plan for the future, while at the same time ensuring the protection of the unique environmental and heritage values of our forest estate. The government has provided some $17 million this financial year to finalise the outstanding scientific assessments or regional forest agreements in the south-west of Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and the south-east of Queensland. It is worth noting that the government spent approximately $31 million last year and $33 million in the 1996-97 financial year finalising the scientific assessment of regional forest agreements throughout Australia.When the WA regional forest agreement is finally announced, this bill will ensure that both industry and environmental groups are confident that the forests of the south-west and Great Southern will be protected by Commonwealth legislation. As I mentioned, this will ensure that the Commonwealth will not be able to agree to water down any termination or compensation provisions of agreement set out.The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 provides certainty for the future of my state's forests. This certainty is essential for future investment, enabling the forest industry to plan for the future, protecting jobs and giving certainty in that area, while at the same time ensuring the protection of the unique environmental and heritage values of our forest estate.11:58:006109Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I am supporting the amendment moved by the Labor Party. There are a couple of brief points I want to make. Firstly, this legislation should really have been introduced before now. If this government was to honour its election promise, it should have enabled a circumstance in which the Senate could also have dealt with it and passed it. We face the very real prospect of this being the last session of parliament before an election is called, yet this vital piece of legislation will have the capacity to be passed through only one chamber of the parliament, the House of Representatives.The other point I would make on this question of timing is that we did have an opportunity for this legislation to be addressed in a bipartisan way, because both sides of the parliament are committed to ensuring resource security. Labor when it was in government set in train a process by which we called for security of resource for this important industry, but said that there needed to be an industry policy together with the resource security. What is the point in securing the resource unless you are going to value add the resource itself? What is the point in just securing the entitlement to resource, if it is to go out as woodchips rather than as finished timber or paper products? The only way in which you are going to encourage the value adding dimension is not through resource security alone, but through an industry policy attached to it.This is the bit that this government has totally ignored. It has failed to do anything to advance the wood and paper industry strategy, which was an important component of our resolution of the resource security debate, and it has done nothing to advance a coherent industry policy in its place. The important resource agreement was signed in Tasmania as far back as November of last year but we are only rushing this legislation through for debate on the very last day of the sittings, a reconvened day, in July—some seven or eight months after the agreement was signed off in Tasmania. So it rings a bit hollow for this government to be talking about the significance of this when it has done nothing to address expeditiously the certainty that this legislation seeks to give. Given the bipartisan support that it was aware Labor would be prepared to give, it strikes us as odd that the government is only bringing it forward now.The closure of the Burnie pulp mill underscores the lack of an industry policy by this government. Essentially it is a government that does not care about intervening with industry to ensure that they honour their obligations. It is a government that is not interested. Just as it was prepared to allow BHP to walk away from its obligations to invest in a new arc furnace, the latest technology to keep Newcastle going, it has failed to intervene to hold Amcor, the company responsible down in Burnie, to its obligation to value add the resource rather than, having secured the resource, see it go out as woodchips.It is interesting that the member for Braddon (Mr Miles) is in the House because the Burnie pulp mill is in his electorate. How ridiculous it appears that in Tasmania, with agreement on the resource and with a guarantee of resource to the industry, we are now going to have a position in which one boat, one ship, takes out more woodchips from the state, because the pulp mill has been closed, and another vessel brings back in pulp to be converted into paper. Why can we not develop a circumstance in which that value adding capacity, that vertical integration, from chip to pulp to paper, occurs in Tasmania itself? Of course, it will only happen if you get an industry policy and this government is not committed to an industry policy.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) would not call up Stan Wallis, head of Amcor, to ask him to reconsider the position. This is the person he can make a phone call to about tax policy, but not about keeping the mill open in Burnie. Instead he sent in the receivers, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman). The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) went to Paris and the acting minister, Minister Truss, called the workers `bludgers' as the reason for the mill closing.The alternative is a Labor Party in office. We have already been down there to talk to the work force and the management. We have had those discussions here in Canberra with them. As well, we have met with the Amcor management. We are prepared to ensure that they honour their obligations under the resource agreement, and that is to develop together a partnership for a value added strategy. Labor in office, when it wins the next election, is prepared to immediately convene a meeting of the parties—not just Amcor, but the interested players in the pulp and paper industry—to make sure that out of a regional forest agreement we also get the important part of the equation that this government allows to go missing, that is, a commitment to an industry policy, a commitment that will provide security for the work force, not just the current work force but a strategy by which we can create more jobs for the future, by value adding the resource and not seeing it continue to go out just as woodchips.12:05:006110McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNP10—I wish to direct my comments to the historic first regional forest agreement that was signed, namely, the East Gippsland RFA. It is true, as the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) says, that value adding is absolutely essential to any of our resource industries, particularly the timber industry in East Gippsland. But a prerequisite for extending into value adding furniture and wood products and the like is resource security. East Gippsland suffered decades of resource insecurity. It became the plaything of the environmental movement in conjunction with Labor governments both state and federal. It was an ad hoc policy for the region. The resource would be made available for a short period and then withdrawn, given back and then withdrawn for even longer. Surely nobody with any sincerity in either the federal or state Labor parties would argue that East Gippsland have had under their regime resource security. How could investments be made? There was no guarantee and often no hope of the supply of the resource which would then lead to value adding. The first thing this government had to do was to provide certainty for a secure investment climate. The RFA process achieves this by providing security of supply under the agreement for the next 20 years, although allowing for provision of a performance review every five years.If I may, I will explain what the regional forest agreement means for the East Gippsland community. The population of the region is about 10,000 people, and 45 per cent of those live in Orbost, the major timber and tourism centre of the region. The rest of the population is obviously spread very widely throughout small communities, even hamlets. The local timber industry directly employs about 500 people and has a turnover of more than $50 million per year. It accounts for about 27 per cent of local manufacturing turnover and about 14 per cent of total Victorian saw timber production. There are about 20 sawmills in the area of varying sizes processing between 1,000 and 30,000 cubic metres of timber annually.When the survey was taken under the RFA for the social impact, which is a very important initiative of the coalition government, in conjunction with the environmental, scientific and timber surveys, we found that nearly 30 per cent of East Gippsland households had a family member whose employment was dependent on the timber industries. So it hardly needs to be said that this is an absolutely essential and fundamental economic and social industry for a large part—in landmass at least—of Victoria, although I hasten to add that tourism is another key employer in East Gippsland.Tourism provides about 300 full-time jobs at any given time, with industry estimates of over 2,000 jobs for part-time workers. In 1995-96, we discovered under the RFA process that about 600,000 visitor days were made to East Gippsland parks. East Gippsland forests are, therefore, important for a range of economic activities other than timber production—tourism, beekeeping and other industries.The signing of the East Gippsland regional forest agreement on 3 February 1997 consolidated the major economic industry in the region. There was a great deal of cooperation, effort and thought invested in the RFA process, particularly given that this was the first one. It was essential that we got it right and struck a balance between conservation and industry development. I believe we have done that; I believe that we do protect wilderness, old-growth forests and the biodiversity values of the region at the same time as providing for ecologically sustainable development of the forest system.It is particularly interesting that, while 90 per cent of the East Gippsland region is public land, 50 per cent of that land is within the comprehensive, adequate and representative—the CAR—reserve system. That way we get the security of investment because there is security of resource which provides that basis for investment in the timber industry so that we do go on to value adding and increase the number of jobs in the industry whilst at the same time we ensure that the community's legitimate expectations of conservation protection are met.So it is a quite outstanding agreement that has been reached. So many people have invested so much of their time and intellect in the issue. There have been scientists, researchers, officials and community groups. Above all, it has been a credit to all those members of the public who took part in the very extensive consultation process locally throughout East Gippsland. There were workshops and public meetings.I would like to congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson), who has spearheaded the RFA process and has overcome all of the bitter wrangling, political opportunism and sell-outs of the past. East Gippsland, I dare say, has been the worst of all the political footballs in the timber industry versus conservation—and that is saying something. Tasmanians may lay claim to that, and I am happy to surrender the title to them if the facts bear them out. It is not a badge of honour on our part. It has set back development of our region for decades.Now we do have hope for the future. I do not pretend for a moment that hundreds of jobs are going to materialise overnight. There are always the economic vagaries of the industry itself which will be retardants on investment and growth in the industry, but when times are good we have to ensure the resource is available on an ecologically sustainable basis. The East Gippsland RFA does exactly that.12:12:006111Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—I rise to support the government's Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . I am surprised that this bill has come forward, particularly when you see in my home state of Western Australia the National Party doing deals with the Greens. I say from the onset that the Commonwealth should be right out of the forest industry. The Commonwealth has little or no expertise in this area and the Commonwealth has always been driven by the pressure of the green movement. It is these half-baked Trots that comprise the green movement that have driven federal government policy.I notice today the enduring member for Denison (Mr Kerr) referring to Dr Clark as though she has some real expertise. What the people of Australia have to understand about PhDs is that, for every PhD, there is an equal and opposite PhD. PhDs without experience are basically valueless. Dr Clark at the ANU has brought down a political doctrine. Let us face it: she is a Trot. That is basically her persuasion—stop all development. That is endorsed by people in the Labor Party. This is not evidence.The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) talks about the need for value adding. I was in the Labor Party caucus pleading for value adding and pleading for industry policy. We did not hear much support from the member for Hotham then. His defence was, `I'm in the ministry.' I would have thought that that was a very good platform to speak out from. But the truth is there could be no real development and no investment in value adding while there was such resource insecurity in the industry.I find it tiresome to hear people get up in this House and say that Australia must seek world's best practice in forestry. We have had world's best practice in forestry for years and years and years. No-one in the world does forestry better than Australia, but, because of the policy of the previous government, we have seen forestry driven offshore. We have seen it driven out of this country, where you had good management, up into South-East Asia, where it has been burning ever since. That is the grim reality of this situation. I advocate value adding wherever possible, but you cannot get that value adding until you have the necessary resource security, and it has never been available until now.This legislation must go through. In some ways, it is too little too late in places like Tasmania, which is in an economic crisis. The timber industry is a natural for Tasmania. We should be doing everything we possibly can to assist it. The decision by Amcor to close down their plant there is premature and short-sighted but, given the governments we have had over years, you can understand this.I am glad the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) has come into the chamber. While he is here I might have a few words to say. I listened with care to his speech. The member for Perth, I know, was interviewed at length by Mr Pearce, who went to see him. Mr Pearce is the spokesman for the Forest Industries Federation in Western Australia and he knows their position. I know the member for Perth knows what the Labor Party is doing is not in the best interests of the nation or the timber industry. I say this to the member for Perth: I have no doubt that you will one day be Prime Minister of this country, but you must remember that power without integrity is never in anyone's long-term interests. I suggest to the member for Perth that, rather than kowtowing to the member for Denison (Mr Kerr) on issues like this, he should speak out and do what he knows to be correct, not what he thinks is going to serve his short-term interests in the Labor Party. Speaking as someone who found that trying to do that was not good for the career, maybe the judgment of the member for Perth is not so bad after all. Maybe what this world needs is the type of doublespeak and hypocrisy that abound in this place.About 100 years ago Napoleon III in France set in train the planting in Bourdeaux of a million hectares of pine plantations—in Christian measurements that is 2½ million acres—and it succeeded very well. Anyone who goes to Bourdeaux now can see that they solved the rising groundwater problem and the enormous erosion problems they had at that time. It worked very well. Nobody is more conscious of this need for plantations than the Department of Conservation and Land Management in Perth. The Department of Conservation and Land Management has planted more trees in the last five years than has been planted in the previous 50 years. They have made an enormous effort there.The member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence) was lamenting conservation matters. The Department of Conservation and Land Management in Western Australia have done more to return Australian native marsupials to the environment than the rest of Australia combined. They have done more than everyone else put together. They have a tremendous record of achievement in this regard, unlike the departments in New South Wales and Victoria which probably spearheaded the illegal export of our fauna, but we continually see them denigrated.It is important that with this legislation we get some stability in these areas and that it is built upon and passed by this parliament. To see the Labor Party once more engaging in stalling tactics is an absolute indictment of their commitment both to the environment and to jobs.There are lots of things we can do in value adding to our product. We are not helped by governments that cut down on research and development as the present government has done. If we were serious about this, we would be pouring resources into research and development in the timber industry—not cutting them off, as we have. We have a situation now where the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) of this country can stand up and officially open the office of an organisation that is putting forward a tax avoidance plan, saying it is a good thing for Australia. We have the tax office bearing down on these people. While these tax schemes are used by big business it did not matter. It was only when small business started to use them that the tax office became anxious and tried to stop them. It is a very inefficient way to do R&D—through tax avoidance. But when there is no other R&D, it is important that we do at least get some research and development done. There are lots of things that we can do to research and develop our timber products and new species of timber, but that will not happen unless investment is put in there.When you look at the state of Tasmania, I believe it is absolutely essential that this agreement goes ahead and we get some stability there. I saw statistics the other day that said that in 40 years time the population of Perth, the capital of my state, will increase by a million people, but that the population of Tasmania is likely to decrease by 50 per cent. I do not want the population of my state to increase by a million people—nor do the people of Perth. Nor do I want to see the population of Tasmania shrink. We, as a nation, have an obligation to Tasmania. It has been hit by the continuing policies of both Labor and Liberal.The Labor Party under Keating deskilled this country. The destruction of the manufacturing industry has put the real skids under Tasmania. We have no industry policy. It makes me sick to hear the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) bleating about industry policy when he did nothing when he had the power to do it. I got no support within the Labor Party for the introduction of an industry policy.If the state of Tasmania were to receive the per capita grants which go to the citizens of the Northern Territory, the state of Tasmania could fund a pulp mill. That would put Tasmania on its feet. There is every reason that the citizens of Tasmania should be receiving per capita the same as the people of the Northern Territory. That is something the whole of Australia should be pushing for.I think it is odd that we are debating this very important legislation on this day back in Canberra—a day which I cannot find a real reason for. It is important that this legislation goes through. It is important not only to workers, who in my view are paramount, but also in the national and environmental interests. I say to the Labor Party: get real. If you don't, you will be swept away. You will be seen by the people as being redundant.12:25:006113McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—Members of this House, including the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), will recall the blockade around the parliament in 1995 when the Labor Party were unable to resolve the matter of the regional forest agreements. There was conflict between the conservationists and the timber industry, with the timber industry wanting security of tenure for their product for a long time. We well recall the conflict within the Labor Party. Minister Beddall, we understand, was basically on the side of the timber industry but he was run over the top of by Senator Faulkner, who at that time was the minister for the environment. So we had a major argument within the Labor Party and it took Senator Bob Collins to sort out the mess. All the timber workers from the south-east forests and all around Australia blockaded in Canberra for 10 days to focus Australia's attention on this fundamental argument of providing jobs for regional Australia and providing security of tenure for the timber industry.The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 finally, under a Howard government, provides security of tenure for the forest industries, provides jobs in regional Australia and makes sure there is long-term access to that timber product. The regional forest agreements, as members have alluded to in previous comments in this House, have been worked out coupe by coupe with a fundamental assessment of forest areas done in a particular area state by state. That was done by scientific assessment and genuine forest rationale, rather than the emotional hysteria which has surrounded this debate for so many decades. It was done by those officers of state departments who have had lifetime experiences of observing forest practice. They ensured there was a proper scientific analysis of good and bad timber, of old-growth forests and of those areas that should be locked up for conservation purposes. Then there was an agreement by the federal government and their departmental officers, taking into account the state recommendations.The RFAs, as everyone would be aware, take into consideration biological diversity and heritage values, with the locking up of certain forest areas and the management of forests in a sustainable, long-term manner. Again, a very important aspect of the general thrust of those people interested in forest matters is that the areas can regrow, and we have seen examples of those areas that were cut 20, 30 or 40 years ago or which were burnt out by fire and which have now regenerated into massive important economic units of forest.The RFA for East Gippsland has been concluded quite successfully, I might say, although there was a lot of debate on some of the criteria. I see at the table the member for Braddon (Mr Miles), who played a very important role in ensuring that the RFA for Tasmania was concluded on a scientific, sensible, reasonable basis, taking into account the timber industry of Tasmania which is the major industry of that state. That state depends largely on that industry for its growth, its wealth and its long-term future. There has been so much debate around Australia on that industry, and the member for Braddon ensured there was a sensible outcome for the regional forest agreement in that state, ensuring that certain areas were locked up and that other areas were used for sustainable timber production.The RFA for the central highlands of Victoria has been concluded satisfactorily, in my view, although there was a certain amount of debate about final demarcations of certain areas in terms of whether they should be kept because of heritage values or used for the sustainable production of timber. There are another nine RFAs to go. They are in the south-east forest area and the northern area of New South Wales and there is one in the Otways, which is in my own part of Victoria in the seat of Corangamite.The current legislation before the House, which I strongly commend, ensures that the state and federal governments work together. The state legislation will ensure that there is continuity of wood supply from the forest reserves and that there are binding agreements between the state authorities and the timber companies. The federal government, in return, has ensured that there will be no export controls imposed under the Export Control Act 1982, especially in relation to woodchips. There is special reference to the Australian Heritage Commission Act and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. If the federal government wishes to terminate any of these RFAs, it must have the consent of the states.The important feature, however, is the incorporation in this legislation of compensation payable if either party reneges from the agreed RFA position. That is what the timber industry is looking for—that is, a commitment by state and federal governments to long-term responsible planning processes. Those people associated with the timber industry—the timber companies and the timber workers in all the jobs, particularly in Tasmania and in the south-east forests—are now assured that although governments may change over the next 20 or 30 years, these agreements will be adhered to. If they are not, then compensation will be payable. I am delighted that the government have seen fit to incorporate that in the legislation so it ensures that governments will not easily move away from these RFAs that are agreed to by both the state and Commonwealth departments.So, after years of debate, we finally have legislation in this House that has solved the very difficult and complex problems of state and federal jurisdictions, of the arguments between the environmentalists and the logging industry and, of course, of the other fundamental argument of logic and scientific assessment of the coupes and the RFAs compared to an emotional, political argument of the conservationist to use the forest argument to further other causes. Fundamentally, at long last, we do have this legislation backed up by this compensation clause.In my own territory in Corangamite, the RFA in the Otways is up for negotiation and settlement. Hopefully, because of the experience in Victoria, there will be some sensible outcomes in that area, there will be an evaluation of good quality sawlogs, the residue that will be used for woodchips will be allowed for and the industry, which is a good industry in the Otways, will be able to continue to harvest that in a long-term sustainable way and yet retain those heritage values that those people based in the cities and a number of people in Australia are keen to maintain.I conclude by commending the Midway woodchip operation at Geelong, which takes in the residue woodchips and the second-grade timber from other areas around Victoria, particularly the central highlands and the Otways. This material is woodchipped and then exported and provides export dollars from material that otherwise would have been burned. It is a very good operation. It ensures that these products are used, that exports are generated and that we do not create pollution in the atmosphere.I commend the legislation. I commend all those people who have taken a sensible view. The member for Braddon, who is at the table, has had a lifetime interest in this parliament in this matter. He has provided a very intelligent assessment from the industry's point of view and has taken account of the conservation values that are required, particularly in his home state of Tasmania. The member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent) has fought a long battle, both political and personal, and the member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey) and the member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn) have had a very close interest and support for the timber industry. I hope that this legislation will, at long last, put to bed those ongoing arguments, give a sense of future, a sense of security, and maintain the jobs for all those people in regional Australia who are so closely associated with the timber and forest industries.12:32:006115Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—First of all, I have to say congratulations to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) on getting this through. It has been a long time in the oven, but at last it is baked and is on the way. I have to say, quite sincerely, thank God we have this because the people in my electorate—and this would apply to those whom the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) mentioned—have been distraught about what has been happening in north-eastern New South Wales, particularly because of the Carr government. I am also delighted that this RFA legislation provides for compensation if, ultimately, a New South Wales Labor government reneges and backs away. That is essential because I have very little faith in Mr Carr and his government in Macquarie Street.Why would I say that? The reality is that they have gone out on their own, without consultation with the Commonwealth, to try to pre-empt a proper, reasonable and sensible forest agreement. They have created new national parks and new wildernesses willy-nilly. How can they call an area where cattle have been grazing a wilderness? A wilderness would surely be somewhere which is pristine, untouched. But, if it has been grazed for decades, I do not know how in their right mind they can do that. Of course, they do not really believe it is a wilderness. They are just pre-empting the RFA, and they are trying to establish more and more into the national parks system.I am a great supporter of national parks. Thank goodness we have national parks. They are marvellous. But there seems to be an empire building concept in the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. They want to grab everything they can. They already have over 30 per cent of the coastline, and now they are seeking to do it again. In June, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service wrote to farmers on the upper Macleay—that is above Kempsey—trying to involve them in a wilderness dispute once again. A number of those farmers and property holders had received letters.While it is right and proper to consider forest areas for various values such as timber production, biodiversity, old growth and so on, that should not be extended to cover private land and leasehold land. That is what they are seeking to do. There is no way, as I said before, that a property currently being used for grazing can be resumed and said to be a wilderness. That is absolute nonsense. The other thing is that, if those individual farmers have a wilderness declaration hanging over their heads like the sword of Damocles, they cannot even sell their property. It destroys their value. It destroys their lives.Talking about the destruction of lives, in northern New South Wales—and I can mention towns like Bonalbo, Woodenbong and Dorrigo in my electorate—thousands of jobs have already been lost. I have a great many friends who are timber workers or small mill owners. It is very hard work. It is very dangerous work. In fact, among my close personal friends, I number a great many who do not have the forefinger or have various joints missing off other fingers. It is a dangerous job. It is a hard job.I believe that they need the support of this parliament. But, in the whole process leading up to this—with the RACAC inquiry in northern New South Wales and elsewhere and the FISAP situation—we have lost jobs and mills have closed. People who have been timber carters, bringing the logs out of the forests—again, a hard job—have lost their business, have lost their jobs. A number of towns have been virtually destroyed. You just cannot go on the single criterion of the forest itself. You have to consider the social and the economic impacts and the disruption of families when the jobs are lost.Unfortunately, you have those who you might regard as fanatic environmentalists. But, let's face it, anybody who is not in favour of looking after the environment is a nut. I believe we must protect our environment, but we have got to do it in a balanced and regional manner. If you compare new forests, new trees, with old growth, the reality is that the amount of carbon dioxide absorption from old trees is very little, whereas the new trees produce a lot more oxygen and absorb a lot more carbon dioxide. The natural process of old trees being used and new trees being planted is incredibly beneficial for the whole of the environment. I do not have the figures at the moment, but the value of new forests as a carbon sink to take that carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is incredibly valuable.We have some people who say, `You should not cut down the old trees.' But it is a renewable resource. It is not like coal. Once you have burned all the coal, it is gone. Once you have used all the oil, it is gone. Once you have mined all the iron ore, it is gone. But you can farm, you can plant, you can harvest trees and forests. This is absolutely essential to the future of mankind.There is no way that I advocate that we should clear everything. We have got to preserve our forests. We have got to plant more. I hope that, in time, this parliament, this government, might be able to come forward with an incentive scheme to encourage people to plant more forests. We have to do it. Of course, the reality is that we are planting an enormous amount. Regard is never really given to that. That is just walked away from. The reality is that the number of hectares of new forest in Australia is growing all the time.We have got an industry which has traditionally employed a lot of people. We have got an industry in which the former Forestry Commission of New South Wales managed the harvesting of the forests in a very sensible way. They did this very well indeed. We have got to get back to the point where we had a commonsense approach to forestry. You cannot lock it all up. Equally, you cannot cut it all down. You have got to have a balanced approach and a reasonable plan which will provide ongoing employment, ongoing subsistence, for the towns and the people. That is what is going to come out of these regional forest agreements.My only fear, my only worry, is with the New South Wales government because, so far, their track record has been disgraceful. They have been predators. They have taken vast areas of forest into national parks and wilderness without any consultation. Also, the science that has been used for determining what should be put into the comprehensive regional assessment has been marred, has been faulty. There is no doubt about that. Those doing the interpretation have done a disservice to the state and to the nation because I believe there are major errors in the interpretation.We have got to make sure that the New South Wales government becomes fair dinkum, accepts that there has to be a forest industry and does not seek to shut it down. All the evidence from Macquarie Street is that they are seeking to shut down the forest industry. They shift the goalposts all the time. We have got to have sensible regional forest agreements so that people know where they are, so they have security and the right to harvest. The right to get your timber out has to be guaranteed.I commend this bill to the House. I believe it is on the right track. The sooner we can get sensible regional forest agreements, particularly for north-eastern New South Wales, without the New South Wales Labor government emasculating them, the better.12:42:006117Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I will be making some summary comments about the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . This is a historic day. We have now got legislation for regional forestry agreements and resource security into this parliament. I have been in this parliament for almost 14 years, and we have been arguing for the need for resource security for about 11 of those years. Today is quite a historic day in this country in regard to providing resource security to the forest industries.There has been a balanced process. We have looked scientifically at the forests of this country. We are progressing step by step in different regional areas of Australia and signing off on regional forestry agreements. This legislation we are debating today underpins the resource security of those agreements, and is, therefore, quite historic.Firstly, I will make some general comments, and then I will make a few comments about contributions made by the members of the House. With the introduction of this bill, the federal government has taken another positive step in establishing a stable and secure framework for forest policy in Australia. It will assist in encouraging investment and job creation and will result in flow-on benefits for rural and regional Australia. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill will provide a broad legislative context for all RFAs, with each RFA including provisions to operate in the relevant region. Three RFAs have been signed and the remainder are due by the year 2000. The government has been pursing a strategy to deliver greater long-term security for forest industries through the RFA process. The bill will provide added certainty for environmental groups, for forest and forest related industries, and for the communities which depend on them.The government's approach is based on four key elements: the RFAs themselves, which promote balanced and secure outcomes for industry and conservationists; complementary state legislation; binding wood supply contracts with the states; and Commonwealth legislation. The legislation is the culmination of more than two years of work to restore the balance to national forest policy in Australia. The government has listened carefully to rural communities dependent on the forest industries for their livelihoods and we have acted decisively by ensuring forest policy is based on common sense.The bill's approach has four key objectives. First, it ensures that any future decisions about the conduct of approved forestry operations within an RFA region are not subject to federal environmental legislation because these requirements were satisfied under the RFA process. Secondly, it ensures that RFAs are legally enforceable so that the Commonwealth could not unilaterally deny access to forest resources in a way contrary to an RFA and escape paying compensation. I think everybody would regard that as reasonable, fair and long overdue. Thirdly, it ensures the arrangements for terminating RFAs designed to make the states and Commonwealth work through the RFAs to resolve any future conflicts could not be made less onerous. Fourthly, it ensures the Export Control Act 1982 or other similar legislation could not be used to prevent the export of wood sourced from an RFA region. These are real hurdles for a future federal government to overcome if it wanted to water down this bill or the RFA provisions it supports. That is, it will require the approval of parliament after full debate.In particular, fair termination and compensation provisions will be secured. The Commonwealth will seek to have included in all RFAs provisions which will ensure that a state must pursue compensation claims from industry for a Commonwealth RFA breach which adversely affects existing wood supply arrangements. To meet industry's concerns about termination by consent, the Commonwealth will negotiate with the states to include in all RFAs a requirement that termination by consent will not come into effect unless at least 12 months notice is given, during which time a public review of the operation of the RFA would be conducted. This will provide the opportunity for consultation with affected third parties.The bill has already received industry support with the National Association of Forest Industries noting, and I quote:The bill deserves the support of all interest groups in the forest debate and all political parties, as it addresses the key rural issues of jobs and communities as well as forest conservation and sustainable forest management.This government is serious in its endeavours to bring about a stable and secure policy framework that encourages investment and job creation in forest industries and to provide certainty and durability for the conservation outcomes from the regional forestry agreements.Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, I know that you are a member of this House who has taken an interest in and been strongly supportive of the forest industries. I am sure that you are interested in this legislation and the debate. I note the contribution by members of the House in this debate, some of whom have been long-time supporters of the forest industries. They have been involved in creating a balanced relationship between the environment and the forest industries. In particular, I mention the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), who is a long-serving member of this House. A regional forestry agreement has not yet been completed in his area. Over the past decade or more he has spent a lot of time making sure that the forest industries in this country are given a fair go—even at the height of the activities of the radical environmental movement within this country.There are a few points I would like to pick up which have been mentioned by opposition speakers. First of all, it was implied that no work was being done on the wood and paper industry strategy. That is quite contrary to the facts. That is being implemented through the established wood and paper industry forum. That committee was set up over a year ago and, of course, the people are already operating in regard to that forum.In regard to consultation in this area, the opposition are saying that there should be more time for consultation. We do not believe there is a need for more time for consultation on this issue at all. I think we ought to look back a little into the history of the forest industries under the previous government. From personal experience, I know that during the 13 years they were in office we had, I think, 13 inquiries into the forest industries in Tasmania. We did not even get to one regional forestry agreement. The Labor Party brought in the national forest policy statement back in 1992 and in the following four years they were in government they actually did not get—RH4KERRMr Kerr—You were supposed to be finished at 12.30.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—I know you do not like to hear what your abysmal record was in regard to the forest industry. The fact is that in four years not one regional forestry agreement was put in place.The coalition government has implemented three regional forestry agreements, three or four more are very well down the track of being completed and, of course, several more will be completed by the year 2000. In other words, we are a government which actually listens, consults and takes action. The previous government had their hands tied. In 1995 this parliament was encircled by log trucks, with about 4,000 people complaining about the policies of the Labor government with regard to this issue. Of course, the other thing—RH4KERRMr Kerr—That was when you voted against the RFA legislation. Do you remember the RFA legislation?BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—You just need to listen. I think the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) talked about downstream processing. I would like to remind all those people listening to this debate that there was a great opportunity for downstream processing in Australia—the biggest opportunity in the last 30 years.AE4NEHLMr Nehl—The pulp mill.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—The member for Cowper reminds me of the Wesley Vale pulp mill—a $1.2 billion project. What did the Labor Party do? Senator Richardson did a deal with the Greens for purely political—AE4NEHLMr Nehl—Expediency.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—Expediency—that is right, as the member says—and pulled the rug out from under downstream processing. That is why in Tasmania now we have a section of the Burnie pulp mill having to be closed down for commercial reasons. That is what they are saying. I think the company is pre-empting that, and I do not think that should be occurring. At the same time, the reason why that is occurring is the Labor Party's refusal to downstream process with a world scale pulp mill in 1989 in this country. We would have had downstream processing going on but, no, the Labor Party pulled out the rug for purely political expediency, and it was for that reason alone. A lot more could be said about this.I just want to say a few things about the amendment which has been moved by the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith). We are opposed to the amendment. The first part of the amendment states:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:notes that Regional Forest Agreements are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional community and industry development objectives for two decades;I want to say that they are all covered in this legislation. When we look at the actual bill itself what do we find?RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members on this side of the House have observed an agreement which limited speaking times, and we did so with the intention to permit this debate to be finished by 12.30 p.m.. The honourable member has been irrelevant to the purposes of the bill. He has omitted to point out that his own party voted against the introduction for resource security legislation in the previous parliament. He is droning on in breach of undertakings given.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! There is no point of order.BI4Miles, Chris, MPMr MILES—I know the member for Denison hates these debates because we go over the record of the previous government. On pages 2 and 3 of the bill we talk about environmental values. We talk about economic values. We talk about social values, including community needs. We talk about the principles of ecologically sustainable management. We talk about the management of used forest areas in the region or regions, and we talk about the long-term stability of forests and forest industries.Also, as I mentioned earlier, the opposition argues in the second part of the amendment that there has not been enough time to consult or that consultation has not taken place. The government sent out invitations to 45 different stakeholders in regard to consultation. We got back 32 submissions out of the 49 stakeholders in this industry. I think that is real consultation. As I said before, this government is not about just having reviews, talking about things, talking about them again and having another talkfest; this government is about action in regard to forest industries and resource security.Resource security has been debated for at least 12 years in this country. We now have in place a number of regional forestry agreements. This piece of legislation is now underpinning those agreements with resource security. It is long overdue. It is legislation that thousands of families in Australia want to see go through this House.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Smith's amendment) stand part of the question. 13:01:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.V. Quick)81Abbott, A. J. Andren, P. 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.Campbell, G. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Draper, P. 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. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Kelly, D. M.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. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.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.Worth, P. M.37Albanese, A. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G.Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.Anderson, J. D. Adams, D. G. H.Cobb, M. R. Baldwin, P. J.Elson, K. S. Melham, D.Halverson, R. G. Willis, R.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Jull, D. F. Lee, M. J.Nugent, P. E. Dargavel, S. J.Reid, N. B. Jenkins, H. A.Taylor, W. L. Evans, M. J.Tuckey, C. W. Thomson, K. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.612013:05:006120Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—by leave—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Perth moving that:(1) the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 be referred to the Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs for consideration and an advisory report by 31 August 1998; and(2) the terms 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.In accordance with an agreement made with the table, I will speak for about a minute and the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) will speak for the same length of time. Nothing will be lost by the House referring this legislation to the relevant House of Representatives standing committee for report back by 31 August, the time when the House and Senate will return. We have made the point in the course of this debate that this matter has not been the subject of adequate detailed consideration. I refer again to the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, which wrote to me earlier this month and said:While this legislation was due to be introduced by 30 June, the lack of wide consultation with interested RFA stakeholders suggested to us that it had been delayed. Its introduction without this consultation meant that most groups have had no input into its contents.It is entirely appropriate for the house committee to be asked to consider the detail of this legislation when it is quite clear that interested stakeholders and parties have not been consulted. There has been no opportunity for comprehensive debate today. There is no opportunity for us to have a consideration in detail debate today. We find today that, even if we did have a consideration in detail debate, the minister is not present to answer any appropriate questions.13:07:006121Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I second the motion. In view of the time circumstances, I indicate only that proper parliamentary review of this process would be enhanced by this parliament recognising that no delay would be occasioned by passage of this particular motion. The only thing that will be shown by opposing it is the intransigence of this government which is seeking to pursue a course, without consultation and without allowing the bipartisanship that it purports to be supporting to be secured.13:08:006121Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—This issue having been debated in Australia now for approximately 12 years, as with the minister and the government having undertaken very extensive consultation on it, there is no need for it to have another month of consultation.Just going back to the detail, we invited contributions from 49 different stakeholders throughout the country in every relevant state—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia—and also national stakeholders in the industry. There was a whole range of different people: those from the union movement, the forest industries, the National Farmers Federation, the conservation movement, and so on. Right throughout this country and throughout every relevant state, consultation was invited. Not only that, but we received submissions from 32 stakeholders. Those consultations have been taken into account in regard to this legislation.The Labor Party has talked about this and has had committees on it over the years it was in government. It is now time for action. This government is taking action in regard to this matter. There is no need for one more month of consultation, when this has been debated in this country for at least 12 years. We are opposed to extending any more time on this issue. We are opposed to the motion.Question resolved in the negative.6121Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Miles) read a third time.Bills6121r2516121Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 6 to 8), omit the clause, substitute: 2 Commencement (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. (2) Items 5, 7, 9 and 11 in Schedule 3 and item 11A in Schedule 9 commence at the end of 18 months after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(2) Clause 3, page 1 (line 10), omit "Each Act", substitute "Subject to section 2, each Act".(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 24 (line 10), omit the Schedule.(4) Schedule 2, item 1, page 25 (lines 29 to 32), omit the note.(5) Schedule 2, page 25 (after line 32), after item 1, insert:1A Paragraph 35(5)(a) After "photograph", insert "for a private or domestic purpose".(6) Schedule 2, item 2, page 26 (after line 4), after the definition of hard copy facsimile , insert: private or domestic purpose includes a portrait of family members, a wedding party or children.(7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 26 (line 5) to page 27 (line 14), omit the item.(8) Schedule 3, item 2, page 28 (lines 26 to 31), omit paragraph (e) of the definition of accessory and all the words after that paragraph, substitute: (e) a record embodying an instructional sound recording, or a copy of an instructional cinematograph film, provided with the article; but does not include: (f) any label, packaging or container on which the olympic symbol (within the meaning of the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 ) is reproduced; or (g) a manual sold with computer software for use in connection with that software.(9) Schedule 3, item 3, page 29 (lines 1 to 10), omit the definition of non-infringing accessory , substitute: non-infringing accessory means an accessory made in: (a) a country that is a party to the International Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works concluded at Berne on 9 September 1886 as revised from time to time; or (b) a country that is a member of the World Trade Organisation and has a law that provides consistently with the TRIPS Agreement for: (i) the ownership and duration of copyright or a related right in works, sound recordings and cinematograph films; and (ii) the owner of the copyright or related right to have rights relating to the reproduction of the work, sound recording or cinematograph film; where: (c) the making of any copy of a work, or any reproduction of a published edition of a work, that is on, or is embodied in, the accessory; or (d) the making of any record embodying a sound recording, or any copy of a cinematograph film, that is the accessory; was authorised by the owner of the copyright in that country in the work, edition, recording or film, as the case may be.(10) Schedule 3, page 29 (after line 10), after item 3, insert: 3A Subsection 10(1) Insert: TRIPS Agreement means the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights set out in Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, done at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. Note: The English text of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization is set out in Australian Treaty Series 1995 No. 8.(11) Schedule 3, item 7, page 29 (line 23), omit "At the end of Division 3 of Part III ", substitute "After section 44B ".(12) Schedule 3, item 11, page 30 (line 13), omit "At the end of Division 6 of Part IV ", substitute "After section 112B ".(13) Schedule 7, page 56 (after line 9), after item 9, insert:9A At the end of section 135ZM Add: (2) If: (a) any remuneration is paid under this Part in respect of a page of a document that is: (i) a copy of the whole or a part of an article (other than a part that is an artistic work) contained in a periodical publication; or (ii) a copy of the whole or a part of a literary or dramatic work contained in a published anthology of works; or (iii) a copy of the whole or a part of a literary, dramatic or musical work other than an article contained in a periodical publication; and (b) the making of the page is not an infringement of the copyright in the article or work because of section 135ZJ, 135ZK or 135ZL; and (c) the page includes an artistic work or artistic works provided for the purpose of explaining or illustrating the article or work; the following paragraphs apply: (d) one-half of the remuneration paid in respect of the making of the page is to be paid to the owner, or divided equally among the owners, of the copyright in the literary, dramatic or musical work or works which, or a part of which, appear on the page; and (e) one-half of that remuneration is to be paid to the owner, or divided equally among the owners, of the copyright in the artistic work or artistic works which, or a part of which, appear on the page.(14) Schedule 9, item 11, page 62 (lines 26 and 27), omit ", 44C, 112A or 112C", substitute "or 112A".(15) Schedule 9, page 62 (after line 27), after item 11, insert: 11A After subsection 135(10) Insert: (10A) This Division does not apply to the importation into Australia of copies of copyright material whose importation does not constitute an infringement of copyright because of section 44C or 112C.(16) Schedule 10, item 2, page 67 (line 1), omit "10(4)", substitute "10A(4)".(17) Schedule 11, items 1 and 2, page 70 (lines 5 to 15), omit the items.(18) Schedule 11, item 6, page 70 (line 26) to page 71 (line 2), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) in a television broadcast (other than a broadcast transmitted for a fee payable to the person who made the broadcast) made from a place in Australia under the authority of: (i) a licence allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ; or (ii) a class licence determined by that Authority under that Act; and(19) Schedule 11, item 7, page 71 (lines 5 to 8), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) in a sound broadcast (other than a broadcast transmitted for a fee payable to the person who made the broadcast) made from a place in Australia under the authority of: (i) a licence allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ; or (ii) a class licence determined by that Authority under that Act.(20) Schedule 11, item 9, page 71 (lines 18 to 20), omit the item, substitute: 9 Paragraph 99(b)Omit "or permit granted under the Broadcasting Act 1942 ", substitute "allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ".(21) Schedule 11, page 71 (after line 20), after item 9, insert: 9A At the end of section 99 Add: ; and (c) a person who makes a television broadcast or sound broadcast under the authority of a class licence determined by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the broadcast.(22) Schedule 11, item 18, page 72 (lines 17 to 21), omit paragraph (b) of the definition of transmission , substitute: (b) a television transmission to subscribers to a diffusion service.(23) Schedule 11, page 74 (after line 24), after item 39, insert:39A Subsection 152(1) (at the end of paragraphs (a) and (aa) of the definition of broadcaster ) Add "or".(24) Schedule 11, item 40, page 74 (lines 25 to 28), omit the item, substitute:40 Subsection 152(1) (paragraph (b) of the definition of broadcaster )Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the holder of a licence allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ; or (c) a person making a broadcast under the authority of a class licence determined by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ; or(25) Schedule 11, items 42 and 43, page 75 (lines 5 to 14), omit the items, substitute:42 Subsections 152(8) and (9)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (8) The Tribunal must not make an order that would require a broadcaster who is: (a) the holder of a licence allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that authorises the holder to broadcast radio programs; or (b) a person authorised by a class licence determined by that Authority under that Act to broadcast radio programs; to pay, in respect of the broadcasting of published sound recordings during the period covered by the order, an amount exceeding 1% of the amount determined by the Tribunal to be the gross earnings of the broadcaster during the period equal to the period covered by the order that ended on the last 30 June that occurred before the period covered by the order. (9) If a broadcaster that is: (a) the holder of a licence allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that authorises the holder to broadcast radio programs; or (b) a person authorised by a class licence determined by that Authority under that Act to broadcast radio programs; has, with the permission of that Authority, adopted an accounting period ending on a day other than 30 June, the reference in subsection (8) to 30 June is, in relation to that broadcaster, a reference to that other day.(26) Schedule 11, item 47, page 75 (lines 21 to 23), omit the item, substitute: 47 Paragraph 184(1)(f) Omit "by a holder of a licence or permit granted under the Broadcasting Act 1942 ", substitute "by a holder of a licence allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 , by a person authorised to make the broadcasts by a class licence determined by that Authority under that Act".(27) Schedule 11, items 49 and 50, page 75 (line 26) to page 76 (line 3), omit the items, substitute: 49 Paragraphs 199(7)(a) and (b) Omit "by the holder of a licence or permit granted under the Broadcasting Act 1942 ", substitute "by a holder of a licence allocated by the Australian Broadcasting Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 , by a person authorised to make the broadcasts by a class licence determined by that Authority under that Act".(28) Schedule 11, page 76 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add: 53 Saving Copyright that subsisted in a television broadcast or a sound broadcast made before the commencement of this Schedule continues to subsist for the period for which that copyright would have subsisted if the amendments made by this Schedule had not been made, and the person who was the owner of that copyright immediately before that commencement continues to be the owner for that period.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—If there is no objection, the chair will allow reference to be made to the Senate's amendments to the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 during the discussion on the Senate's amendments to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997.13:11:006124Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.I foreshadow that there are amendments in relation to the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 and, in accordance with your direction, I would suggest that reference also be made to those amendments.The Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 is an important step in bringing about an up-to-date and workable copyright law. I am pleased that the government has met its election commitment to implement these effective and wide ranging reforms for copyright for creators, owners and users of copyright material. Most of these reforms to the law were, of course, promised by the last Labor government but were not delivered. During the debate on the bill in the Senate on 11 July, the government moved a number of amendments to the bill which the Senate has accepted. The government amendments to the bill improve the effectiveness of the amendments made by the bill as passed by the House last June and provide for greater rights for visual artists.The bill reforms the law of ownership of copyright in works of employed journalists. With the impact of new technology, the way that the act provides copyright between the publishers and employed journalists has become out of date. In regard to electronic uses of the employees' works—for example, the selling of on-line access to the public—the government accepts that the publishers' copyright in their employees' creations should now extend to electronic rights, and the bill provides for this.The bill confirms that the book rights now held by employed journalists in their articles and pictures will stay with them. The existing right of the employed journalists who authorise photocopying of their articles, most notably in press-cutting services, will also remain with them. However, the government no longer sees justification in giving publishers a right to restrain the making of photocopies of more than 15 per cent of a newspaper or magazine and, therefore, has amended the bill in the Senate to repeal the right of restraint. This amendment makes the reform to employed journalists' copyright more workable.The removal of copyright control over parallel importation of copyright in packaging and labelling of non-copyright goods will lead to cheaper prices for branded goods and greater availability of such goods. It will benefit consumers and many small businesses as well as correct an anomalous and unjustifiable use of copyright law. The amendments in schedule 3 of the bill implement this desirable and long overdue reform. However, the government recognises that the removal of importation restrictions on goods with copyright packaging and labelling might impose some hardship on firms which in good faith have entered into commitments based on the law as it now stands. For this reason, the government has decided to delay the provisions permitting the parallel importation of copyright goods until 18 months after the bill receives royal assent. This will give adequate time for these businesses to adjust their operations.The government amendments to schedule 2 of the bill transfer ownership of copyright in commissioned photographs from the commissioning party to the photographer, except for photographs of a private or domestic nature where the copyright control rightly remains with the person commissioning the photograph. The amendments transferring ownership of copyright only apply to photographs taken after the bill comes into effect, so that present contractual arrangements are not affected. This change to the law has been sought by commercial photographers for a number of years and will assist them in licensing future uses of their works, especially in the on-line environment.The government has also amended section 135ZM of the Copyright Act, which allows for incidental copying by educational institutions that accompany text copied under the licence for educational copying. The government decided to amend the provision to clarify that, where an artistic work is copied along with text that accompanies the artistic work, the remuneration now payable to the author of the text should be shared with the visual artist. This is a positive reform for visual artists, who will now receive their fair share of remuneration collected under the copying licence. The amendment also ensures that educational institutions will not have to make additional payment for the copying of artistic works that accompany the copied texts.The bill also introduces much needed streamlining or modernising of the operation of some areas of the act which benefit both creators and users of copyright. Provisions amended include those allowing governments to copy copyright material subject to providing equitable remuneration to copyright owners, those allowing institutions serving persons with print or intellectual disabilities to make special additions, those allowing educational institutions to copy materials for teaching, those establishing the Copyright Tribunal, those governing the remedies that may be awarded by courts for copyright infringement and those concerning the border interception of infringing imported copyright material. (Extension of time granted)The bill as introduced included amendments providing for comprehensive protection of the moral rights of integrity and attribution of authors of works and the makers of films. The government remains committed to introducing a workable moral rights regime. It will be a regime that ensures Australia meets its international obligations and, importantly, it will be one that is fair to creators, producers and users of copyright material. However, once this bill was introduced, the justification for comprehensive moral rights protection became obscured by debate over a provision to allow an up-front waiver for contracted works and films, principally led by the film and television industry.Since the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee released its report in October 1997, where the majority recommended the extension of waiver at the time of commissioning a work or film, the government has held lengthy discussions over several months with the participants to try to broker an acceptable compromise on this issue that would satisfy all interests and maintain certainty and confidence in the industry. This has not proved possible to date. The government has therefore withdrawn the moral rights provisions in schedule 1 from the bill. We will continue to consult to develop a consensus on a workable provision on waiver and then resubmit the moral rights regime as a stand-alone bill later this year. All in all, this bill as amended is a very substantial first instalment of the government's commitment to introduce an up-to-date and workable copyright regime for Australia.In relation to the No. 2 bill, in the coalition's arts election policy, For Art's Sake—A Fair Go!, we promised to consider how to ensure that cheaper CDs were available for consumers. In our arts policy, we said:The coalition is concerned about the high price of CDs by world standards and Labor's failure to introduce greater competitive pressures in the wake of recent reports of the Prices Surveillance Authority.We are also aware there is significant industry concern regarding the implication of proposals for the abolition of parallel import restrictions. In government, we will invite formal submissions through industry and the wider community to determine the most effective means of achieving lower prices for consumers.True to this election promise, the government consulted widely with affected interests. We considered the submissions made on the issue of lowering CD prices. After this consultation in October 1997, we decided to remove the existing controls of copyright owners over the parallel importation of sound recordings as a way to reduce the prices of CDs for Australian consumers. The bill as amended in the Senate implements this decision and provides that non-pirate CDs—that is, CDs made legitimately in other countries—can be imported into Australia without the consent of the Australian copyright owner. The bill, of course, maintains the existing rights of copyright owners to stop commercial importation of pirate CDs. The bill also provides for a range of measures to improve the protection for owners of copyright in sound recordings. In civil proceedings against importation of or dealing in pirate copies of CDs, the onus of establishing the defence that the imported CD was not a pirate CD is placed on the importer or distributor in Australia. The bill increases the maximum penalties for all copyright offences. These reforms are long overdue. In 1990, the then Prices Surveillance Authority found that prices of sound recordings were high in Australia by comparison with those in comparable countries. The PSA concluded that the control by copyright owners over the importation of CDs was a major factor in maintaining the higher prices and predicted that prices would fall if parallel importation were permitted.The Labor government vacillated on this matter for years. It introduced a bill in 1992 which would have partly implemented the PSA's recommendations, but the bill lapsed on the calling of the 1993 federal election. Then, in 1995, the Labor government backtracked and reversed its earlier decision, deciding not to remove the parallel importation controls on CDs. In stark contrast to that lacklustre effort, the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , which implements this government's decision to remove parallel import controls on CDs, was passed by this House on 26 November last year. In April this year, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee reported on the bill. After extensive consultation, the majority report recommended that the bill be passed and made some suggestions for the government's consideration.The government amendments to the bill, passed by the Senate on the weekend, are now before this House. They reflect the government's response to the report of the Senate committee. The government amendments are technical amendments to clarify and refine the operation of provisions in the bill. The government amendments will tighten the definition of non-infringing copy of a sound recording. (Extension of time granted) The amended definition expressly requires that parallel imported CDs must be made in a country with a copyright law and, by reference to the Berne Convention and the World Trade Organisation agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, TRIPS, in a country with a suitable level of copyright protection.The amendments also increase the monetary penalties for copyright offences by 10 per cent. Maximum fines will be over $60,000 for individuals, who may also face up to five years imprisonment. Corporations face penalties of over $300,000. These amendments to the copyright penalties provisions will ensure that the government delivers on its commitment to strong protection against piracy and to deterring importation of pirate copies of sound recordings. Consistent with our election commitments, the government is confident these reforms will lead to cheaper CD prices, which will benefit all Australian consumers. I draw attention to the fact that this view is shared by the editors of some leading newspapers, including the Australian today and the Sydney Morning Herald within the last couple of days.A media release by Bankers Trust Research, dated yesterday, indicates that once the No. 2 bill is made into law, the government expects compact disc prices to fall by between $3 and $7 for brand name goods. However, the government has decided to delay the implementation of the legislation for 18 months. Compact discs are included in the records, cassettes and tapes subgroup of the CPI, and the expectation of Bankers Trust Research is that the cheaper compact discs would shave around one-tenth of a percentage point off the underlying CPI. They make similar comments about exclusive brand name goods, although it does not fall within their projection period. The message for the community is that there will be cheaper compact discs, it will reduce the CPI and everybody will benefit.The scaremongering that has gone on at the instigation of the multinational distribution companies is deplorable and it is unacceptable that consumers should be subjected to the whims of a multinational exclusive distributor.13:24:006127Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I thank the government for its willingness to allow me to speak, effectively through three five-minute blocks as the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has just done, on these two bills—the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 —cognately. Both bills are of concern to us; the second absolutely.The disagreement we have with the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 basically goes to schedule 3 in the bill. There are many technical issues wrapped up in the issue of parallel imports, but I will talk about just two before moving on to our major concern with the first bill, and that is security for Australian industries and Australian workers.In essence, this bill will enable companies to source branded products, like Nike runners and Reebok t-shirts, offshore and distribute them in Australia without having to have a licence to do so from the owner of the copyright on those goods. This immediately raises a few obvious issues. Firstly, concerns have been raised that parallel imports of branded goods may be of a quality inferior to that of the product currently available in Australia, thereby damaging the product's reputation. The bill has the potential to undermine consumer trust in the brand names they rely on.Secondly, there is a danger that Australian consumers will be exposed to substandard products or products not designed or not modified for Australian conditions. There are real health and safety issues at stake here. For example, in one recent case, a US food product contained an additive identified as carcinogenic and was not permitted under Australian food laws. The US manufacturer modified the product to remove that additive for the product sold in Australia. However, an importer sought to bring the original US product into Australia without permission. The parallel importation provisions were used to prevent that from occurring. Another example is that the US frequency for radio-controlled toys is the same as the Australian emergency band. Just imagine if those were allowed to come into the country.The real issue is not any of these that I have been talking about, important though they are. The real issue is Australian jobs. Put simply, parallel imports will be able, in many cases, to undercut licensed suppliers of the same goods already in Australia. In some cases they will be able to undercut operations which actually manufacture licensed goods in Australia, with the result that these goods are effectively exported. This is most readily apparent in the context of the current Asian economic crisis. As markets in our region fail and consumer demand dries up for particular goods in those markets, we are increasingly going to find imported goods flooding into this country at rock-bottom prices, resulting in effective though not actual dumping of goods on the Australian market. People who do this will be looking for a cheap buck. They will increasingly be looking for any return on their investment, driving prices down, but they will not be looking to establish long-term markets in Australia and the security for jobs and investment that that generates.The recent study produced by Price Waterhouse on behalf the Brands Coalition shows that, among the 1,456 Australian businesses surveyed, over 9,000 jobs would be lost. Business turnover would be reduced by $3 billion and advertising expenditure would be reduced by $281 million. This is the ultimate victory, it seems, of textbook economics over real people's lives. The government seems to care little about these jobs and is attempting to assert that the companies complaining about this are multinational companies. But the average employment per business—that is, 1,456 businesses with total employment of 15,843—was only 12 employees. This is not the so-called evil multinationals the government and the Democrats keep referring to in their justification for this legislation. These are small and medium sized companies. The impact of the changes in schedule 3 will be on hardworking Australian owned and operated companies.Additional studies point to the adverse impact of this bill on employment in several marginal seats. For instance, in the seat of Parramatta the losses will be around 2,000 jobs. I am sure the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) will be looking over his shoulder and worrying about the impact on his votes in this election, so it could well be 2,001 jobs. And what about the jobs in the Gosford area, in the seat of Robertson? I am sure the member for Robertson (Mr Lloyd) will also be worried about how he can explain the 1,200 job losses in Robertson which will be caused by this legislation. This is just a sample of the impact on jobs from this legislation. The government may secure passage of this bill, but I can assure you that we are going to remind voters about the impact of this bill on their lives and their livelihoods.Let me talk a little more about the second bill, that relating to compact discs, and talk about its impact not only on the current industry but on the growth of potentially world beating Australian industries. The government wants the Australian people to take it on trust with this bill. `Trust us,' it says, `CD prices will fall as a result of this bill.' But can you actually get a genuine guarantee out of any members of this government on what that will actually mean? We already know that CD prices fluctuate greatly and of the bins that are already in the supermarkets and in some of the small businesses selling CDs where you get a cheaply priced CD. When actually quizzed on this, the best they can actually get out of it tends to be around $1.60. That is what it is supposed to fall by, not by the $7 that was referred to by the minister.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has given his personal pledge that prices will fall and I can tell you this: we in the Labor Party and the consumers of Australia are going to hold him to it. That pledge is a `maybe' at best, the `maybe' when you look at all the available hard evidence. It may be made even less likely by this Prime Minister lending his tattered credibility to the cause. We in the opposition know a bit about this issue. We considered the idea several times and rejected the proposals now enshrined in this bill. We did so because we understood the certainties, not just the `maybes', of the bill. The `maybe' is the price. Let us talk about the certainty. The certainty is that this bill, ushered through the Senate in the dead of night, is going to bring about a very substantial collapse of jobs, jobs of a high-technology and creative nature in this community.It is not an issue primarily about industry protection and free trade; it is about the development and enhancement of intellectual property rights, especially as they relate to the copyright of musical works and sound recordings. Copyright is a recognised way of protecting creative intellectual products in the world market. The US and the European Union, among many countries, think Australia is stupid even contemplating lowering the protection of our copyrights. Most countries have no intention of adopting parallel imports and opening up their industries to unfair competition from imports.The bill means that Australia will have a copyright regime for music CDs different from just about everybody else's. The copyright regime will, quite simply, be weaker. Artists and companies will not be adequately protected from pirate copies of CDs undercutting legitimate producers. The policy is likely to cause severe damage to our music industry. Quite simply, the music industry will be less willing to invest in Australian musical talent because any successes it has can be undercut by pirate copies and cheap imports.The proof of the pudding for this issue was there yesterday with the announcement by Shock Records, Australia's largest independent record company, that it will drop half its local recording artists as a result of this government's bill passing through the Senate. One hundred Australian artists will be removed from Shock's roster. The marketing and promotion of new talent is also going to be slashed by it.Incoming investment in the Australian music industry from overseas is also going to suffer. Again, the proof of this came quickly yesterday with criticism from the US State Department of the decision. Reporting on this yesterday, the Age said:International reaction to the move could result in Australia being shunned as a base for the booming information technology industry—this would threaten a fast growing industry and— a major source of foreign investment.That is precisely the point. The government seems congenitally unable to understand the sources of Australian competitiveness for the future. Copyright protection lies at the centre of the future development of industries that will be vital to our prosperity.Australia has a well educated, creative, innovative and English-speaking population. Some of our greatest potential industries lie in areas like software writing, publishing and music. These are the growing world industries Australia has a great opportunity to tap into. Against this background, the government decides to remove copyright protections. (Extension of time granted) Nothing could be better calculated to choke off the flow of international investment Australian industries need to develop and grow. As one US trade official, quoted in yesterday's Age, said:"We find it difficult to see it—that is, the bill—as anything other than precedent-setting among OECD countries. This places Australia outside common international practice.In this regard, it is counter to the international trend. The Prime Minister likes to portray this as a battle between ordinary consumers and big multinationals, but there are about half a dozen multinationals and more than 200 independent Australian owned record companies affected by this decision. For what has this government mortgaged these industries' future? There is no proof that the introduction of parallel imports will substantially reduce the price of CDs in this country. The retail price of CDs is influenced by many factors, including the size of the domestic market and the structure of retailing. As if we need reminding, the exchange rate volatility we have experienced of late could wipe out price differentials overnight.Labor believes that the only way in which CDs may be cheaper under parallel importing is if CDs are sourced from overseas and are imports from Asia where royalties are low or not paid, pirated copies or deletions mainly from the US. Therefore, any lowering of CD prices is likely to come only at the cost of huge damage to Australian artists and companies. We are there to defend Australian culture and Australian innovation and creativity against this government's careless assaults and malign neglect. We must encourage our own culture and we must give it a chance to flourish both here and overseas. After all, we enjoy the successes, whether they be those of the Easybeats many years ago, of Men At Work in the 1980s or of Savage Garden and silverchair right now. We are going to give expression to this in our contemporary music policy for government.The starting point of that contemporary music policy will be the repeal of this legislation. We will be ensuring that the ban on parallel imports remains in place. But, in return, we will ask the major record companies to increase their production and promotion of contemporary Australian music. This will be just another example of our idea of reciprocal obligation in industry policy. We are going to encourage local commercial radio stations to play more contemporary music by increasing the existing 25 per cent local content to 30 per cent. We will also allow local stations to count a new release song as 1.5 times the value of a golden oldie. So that should be sufficient incentive for local radio to play more Whitlams or Leonardo's Bride and a bit less of Skyhooks or the Seekers.For our up-and-coming artists and musicians, who make such an extraordinary contribution to our cultural and economic prosperity as a nation, we will be offering a few incentives: $6 million over four years to a contemporary music development fund to provide non-redeemable grants of between $5,000 and $50,000 directly to bands and individual artists to assist in funding international and national tours; allowing young musicians to meet the activity test for unemployment benefits if they can demonstrate that they are actively developing a career in contemporary music; and introducing legislation to alter visa requirements to ensure that foreign touring bands and artists have secured an Australian support act at the time they apply for their visa, thereby giving our younger artists a greater chance for better publicity.During this debate, we have made great play of the impact that the legislation will have on the contemporary music industry, and there is no doubt that the initial impact is going to be severe—massive—on jobs for a vast number of young Australians and on creativity amongst a large number of young Australians. But make no mistake why there is so much objection to this in the US and in Europe—and these are in many ways the high priests these days of advocacy of international free trade. They understand that this is not about free trade but about the protection of intellectual property. They understand that contemporary and future industry is going to be massively based on a proper recognition of it.We have massive advantages in that area ourselves arising from our good education system, the fact that we are English speaking and that we are adept at utilisation of contemporary and new technologies. We are blowing that away by a stupid, short-term decision in this particular instance. In the end, this country will not thank this government for what it has done when they come to comprehend that. Those passing through our education system now will not thank this government when they look at the scant opportunities that will arise as we become known as a nation that does not protect intellectual property. We will be repealing it. (Time expired)13:40:006130Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I am delighted to rise in this debate today to discuss the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , particularly the aspect of the No. 2 bill to do with the lifting of the ban on the parallel importation of the same compact disc product. I first put out a press release on this subject in 1995. For the last three years I have been an advocate for a change in policy in this area because I believe that it will lead to lower prices for consumers.There are a couple of points in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) that I would like to touch on before I deal with some of the elements of the bill. I was reminded of that movie Groundhog Day and the recurring nightmare that the day brought about when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) referred to the Labor Party's contemporary music policy after the next election. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would be repealing this bill and encouraging and asking the industry to invest more of their resources on local talent. It took me back to 20 April 1995 when the then government, the Keating Labor government, signed an agreement with the music industry to spend $270 million more on contemporary Australian music in return for keeping the ban on parallel importation.The sad joke about that was that, although Labor signed the agreement, the music industry did not sign the agreement until about two years later when we were in government and, in fact, did not spend one iota of the $270 million that they had promised on local Australian talent. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that on 15 October last year when he said in a radio interview that there had been little benefit from the $270 million promised as part of the agreement.So, listening to his speech today, I was reminded of Groundhog Day and the nightmare for consumers in the Leader of the Opposition saying that he expected to get the industry to put money into local talent. The industry already puts money into local talent—we accept that, and they do a good job for the Australian music industry—but that will not be damaged in any way by freeing up this import monopoly and giving consumers the opportunity to buy CDs at cheaper prices. There are a whole host of reasons why this is necessary. Firstly, if this bill does not pass, Australian consumers will continue to flock to the Internet to buy their compact discs. It has been estimated by various groups that billions of dollars of compact disc purchases are made over the Internet each year, and about 15 to 20 per cent of those billions are being spent by Australian consumers. You can buy CDs for anything like $21 or less over the Internet, delivered to your door. The same CD might cost $30 in the local retail shop, so why wouldn't people buy over the Internet? So, if this bill is not passed, retailers will be hurt by it because they are going to lose business to the Internet. The multinationals do not mind because they still get the profit. Whether the CD is purchased in Australia at a retail store or whether it is purchased over the Internet, the multinational in New York, for example, still ends up with the profit.We have brought about this legislation, and we are very proud of it, for a number of reasons. One of the prime reasons is that we know it will lead to a reduction in price. Woolworths, as late as today, were saying that they expected to be able to pass on the benefits of this legislation to consumers at least in the next two months and probably will be able to bring about price changes of anything between $3 and $7. That is a very significant price reduction, and that will lead to a number of things. It will lead to more CDs being purchased. When consumers buy their Christmas stocking for their friends and their family, rather than buying one or two CDs, they will now be able to afford to buy two or three or four CDs. So the reality is that the government is increasing the market for compact discs being sold in Australia, and that is a very good thing for Australian musicians, for independent labels and for the music industry generally.We do not expect that this will lead to a contraction of the market for compact discs in Australia—quite the opposite. Economic logic tells us all that, if the prices are being reduced, people will buy more of that product. So people will buy more CDs, and that will lead to a growth in the industry and also will lead to an increase in jobs. (Extension of time granted)We expect that there will actually be jobs in the industry in retail in the current market in Australia and that the multinationals will continue to produce compact discs in Australia. None of the multinationals will abandon the Australian market, which is very lucrative because we are a wealthy nation. None of the multinationals will abandon the market for compact discs. I would expect that they would stay in the market. More CDs will be purchased because the prices are lower and that will mean more jobs in retail and in the industry itself.I will also touch on the role that has been played in this debate by ARIA and Emmanuel Candi. I know they were very critical of the government's position and have waged a national advertising campaign. But, as far as I am concerned, ARIA have always conducted this campaign in a civil and sensible way and have stood up for the interests of their industry as they perceive them. I do not agree with the position taken by ARIA in a policy sense, but there will be other issues that will come up in the music industry and in the arts that ARIA and Emmanuel Candi will want to work with the government on. I, for one, am happy to say that throughout this debate, while we have been opponents on podiums across Australia and disagreed in the media, we have always been able to conduct the debate in a very sensible and mature fashion. I would expect that to continue in the future.I would like to also deal with one of the major problems as perceived by ARIA and the music industry, and that is the question of piracy. The music industry claims that there will be a massive influx of pirated product into Australia and that this is the main reason why the government should not have gone ahead with this legislation. We put in place some absolute cast-iron positions that will ensure that piracy does not become the problem that the music industry says it will become.Firstly and most importantly for a lawyer—and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Cadman), at the table, also has a legal background and will appreciate this—we have reversed the onus of proof for retailers in proving that the product is a pirated product. In the past, the music industry has had to show that the product is pirated. In the future, retailers will have to prove that the product they have for sale in their stores was purchased from a legitimate source and is, therefore, not pirated product.That gives the music industry a fantastic opportunity to stamp out piracy because no retailers will purchase pirated product—which they will then have to prove is legitimate—to sell in their shops. We do not have the sort of market in Australia as the markets in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, which sell pirated product through street stalls. We have a very discrete market. Almost all CDs are purchased through retail stores and chains. We are an island nation, with a sophisticated retail network and the music industry and the retailers themselves have given a commitment—as they have always had—to stamping out pirated product.The second reason piracy will not be a problem is that the price of CDs will be so much lower that one of the main reasons for piracy, namely the sale of cheap CDs, will be pulled out from underneath those seeking to expand pirated product. Finally, with respect to piracy, we have increased dramatically the punishment for the crime of piracy in Australia. The penalties for piracy have been increased 100 times. For individuals the penalty for piracy now involves a $60,000 fine and for corporations a $200,000 fine. So we have reversed the onus of proof, we have massively increased by a hundred times the penalties and we are aware, and the retail industry is aware, that the sophisticated nature of our retail market means that piracy will not be the problem that they expected it to be.In order to allay any residual fears from the music industry, we have announced that we will be spending $10 million over the next three years to encourage the music industry in Australia. We will add to the contemporary music development fund to support young musicians who are trying to break into overseas markets. We will help them access those markets, have their product put onto the Internet, put business plans together and so on.In summary, I am delighted that this legislation has come to the House. I am pleased that Senator Colston chose to abstain from the vote in the Senate in order to allow this bill to pass, and I thank Senator Harradine for his support. I congratulate the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) for the unswerving capacity he has demonstrated in making sure that this bill is seen through the program of the parliament and will be in place well before the next election and in time for consumers to purchase cheaper CDs for Christmas.13:50:006132Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The great losers in this debate on the copyright law bills will be the small businesses that operate as CD shops in Australia, because the effect of what this government is proposing will mean that over time the large electrical retail chains will increase their market dominance through their buying power and, as a consequence, many of the small businesses operating in shopping centres and retail strips in areas around Australia will simply disappear. More jobs will be lost and, as a consequence, we will see an industry policy which is in tatters as a result of this government's policy.Whilst most of the attention has been focused because of the passage of this legislation on cheapening the costs of CDs and that in some way the Australian music industry, under the government's logic, will benefit from this—if you talk to anybody in the industry, there will be no benefits at all and intellectual property rights will certainly not be protected—whilst there has been much comment made about that, little has been said about some residual consequences of this bill.The bill not only has ramifications for the CD industry but also has the potential to destroy the integrity of brand names across Australia through allowing parallel imports. As a direct consequence of that, it has some enormous ramifications for the sponsorship of sport in this nation—sponsorship which is presently valued at over $1 billion. My colleague the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) will say more about Labor's response to the effect of this legislation on CDs and Australian artists, the ability of people to make a decent living in this country and retain intellectual property rights over the songs they compose and so on.But I want to talk specifically about this issue—about how the new copyright bill is going to put the $1 billion sports sponsorship at risk in this nation. The bill is going to amend the law to enable cheap imports to flood the market, with brand names having no protection. This means that all of the investment made by companies in brand recognition and advertising to encourage brand loyalty will be put at risk. During the deliberations over this copyright bill and, as I understand it, for some 18 months now, representations have been made to the government by organisations such as Mattel, Southcorp, Village Roadshow, Gatorade, Reebok, Billabong Australia, Toyota and a whole range of other people about the consequences of what the government was proposing. But unfortunately the calls for better consultation, which have been echoed by the Labor Party, have fallen on the deaf ears of both Senator Alston and the Attorney-General (Mr Williams).Under the new arrangements, exclusive licence agreements will be open for competition. An example of this would suffice to demonstrate the concern that Labor has. As reported by Ben Pedley recently on behalf of Dow Jones, the manufacturer Reebok has said that it would review its sponsorship of Australian sporting teams events and athletes following a recent change to copyright laws. Reebok sponsor, amongst other people, the Australian Wallabies, who had a resounding win last Saturday night in Melbourne. It sponsors in part I think the Sharks in the National Rugby League and it also sponsors the Essendon Football Club. This company is saying that all of that sponsorship is in jeopardy. The reason this is the case is that the law change abolishes a system that allowed only dealers authorised by the copyright owners of a brand name such as Reebok to sell its products in Australia.Most of the discussion arising, as we have already indicated, has concentrated on CDs. Mr Keith Forbes, the manager of trademark brand protection for Reebok Australia, has been reported as saying that the law change is disappointing and increases the likelihood that Australia will be flooded with fake and low quality goods. He is quoted as saying that the new law means for Reebok that marketing expenses—which for Reebok is everything from advertising to, more importantly, the sponsorship of major events and Australian athletes—will be scaled back. This is a major company in this nation involved in sports sponsorship. They are going to scale back that sponsorship because of this law. He says the company is not going to continue to market a brand for someone else to benefit, because what is being suggested is that Reebok manufactured somewhere else, offshore, or someone with cheap imitations will dump a lot of that sort of product into Australia, and there fore compete illegally against licensed distributors in Australia. (Extension of time granted)Mr Forbes has pointed out that under the new laws the customs officers are going to find it more difficult to detect counterfeit imports because of an expected increase in the volume of those sorts of imports. It stands to reason that that will be the case. As he rightly points out, and certainly as I have indicated in this House previously as the shadow minister for customs, the resources of that organisation are stretched anyway. As a consequence, to be able to detect the increased number of counterfeit goods coming into Australia is certainly going to stretch Customs.Mr Forbes went on to say that parallel imports will not produce savings for consumers as the government hoped and that they will probably detract significantly from profit margins for companies such as Reebok. Goods purchased on the so-called grey market are generally second-hand and third-hand, which means there are a couple of margins included in the final price. He went on to conclude, in the report by Ben Pedley, that the main effect is going to be on sports sponsorship.I wonder whether the Attorney-General gave that some thought. The Attorney-General is a sportsman. I know that he still plays veterans' hockey. I am pleased to see the Attorney-General here. I wonder whether he has given some consideration to that very point. If the Attorney has, when people came and made representations to him about the likely effect of products flooding into Australia, which meant that investment by companies with brand recognition was going to be undermined, why not look at ways in which that can be minimised? The crisis that would subsequently arise in the ability to sponsor major sporting events in Australia in some way might then be averted. The companies that I mentioned will not sponsor those individual sports that I mentioned. There are also concerns being expressed about the way funding for the Olympic Games might be impacted upon because of the relationship between products flooding into Australia and the way this bill is interpreted subsequently.In 1996-97 the Australian Sports Commission generated some $6 million in corporate revenue, marketing and sponsorship activities. That too will be under threat now. These sponsorship deals included companies such as Kelloggs, Digital, Speedo, Rydges, Dunlop, Kodak, Dairy Farmers and Olympic Fine Foods. We know that in the first budget the government cut $20 million out of the Australian Sports Commission. We know that the Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr Andrew Thomson) says that all sport should go out and find private sponsors.FB6THOMSONMr Andrew Thomson—Hear, hear!8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—I am pleased he has walked in. He said `Hear, hear!' because that is his preferred position. But why would people go out there and try to find these sponsors when the sponsors know that, because of the passage of this legislation, their brand recognition is not going to be guaranteed, and therefore their ability, to get some benefit? Let us face it: most corporations in Australia do not do it because they love the sport. They sponsor sport in this nation because they get corporate benefit from it, that is, increased sales and greater revenue coming through the tills and, as a consequence, higher profits. If they think that in some way their ability to get an increase in that profit for the company is going to be jeopardised by sponsoring sporting events for the reasons we have already outlined in debate this afternoon, why would they do it? They simply will not.This legislation on copyright is deficient in a number of ways. It is deficient because there are unintended consequences. Perhaps they are intended consequences. There will be a real risk placed on the $1 billion sports sponsorship in Australia at present. But, importantly, as we have already said in this place, the effect on small businesses, those small CD shops, because of the buying power of large electrical merchandising companies, will be such that many of those small businesses will shut. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) indicated as well, there is no guarantee on the intellectual property now of any of the artists in Australia. As a conse quence of this, we have already seen Shock Records and other people saying they are going to cut from their rosters the people who are working for them or be prevented from taking on new recording artists. It is a shame that it has come to that with this legislation. It should be withdrawn. It should be withdrawn now. There should be further consultation. We demand that that happen.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.Ministerial Arrangements61356135Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) will be absent from question time. He is delivering the keynote address at the Victorian Farmers Federation annual conference in Melbourne. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice613561356135Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will have seen the comments of his National Party colleague Dexter Davies in Western Australia that `the Nationals have to wear the whims of a Prime Minister, who at worst makes policy on the run to shore up a problem in some unrelated area'. Was the Deputy Prime Minister consulted before the Prime Minister announced the full sale of Telstra in Brisbane in March? Did the Deputy Prime Minister and his National Party colleagues agree to the full sell off of Telstra prior to the announcement?6135Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the question is yes, but I am wondering where the absent opposition frontbench might be on this sitting day. The Prime Minister did consult. The matter went before the cabinet and before the joint party meeting. The matter relates to a very important issue—the coalition doing something about upgrading the infrastructure in rural and regional Australia, when for 13 years you did not. I just make a point—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question was specifically was he consulted before the announcement in March and did they all agree to it before that announcement was made.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat!DT4CREANMr Crean—Answer the question!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will remain silent! The Deputy Prime Minister is answering the question according to the standing orders.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I was consulted before. I make just a couple of other additional points. During Labor's period in office, 277 post offices were closed down. We opened 151. With regard to consultation, I was also consulted—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: my question specifically asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he and his National Party colleagues agreed to the full sell off. There were no other items in it about Australia Post or anything else.WI4REITHMr Reith—On the point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Can I just respond to the Leader of the Opposition first. I think all members know that in question time, as long as the answer is relevant to the question put, it is in order. The Deputy Prime Minister at the moment is explaining some details related to the question and I believe him still to be relevant. Does the Leader of the House wish to raise a point of order?WI4REITHMr Reith—If I may, Mr Speaker. My submission to you is that the point of order from the Leader of the Opposition is clearly disruptive. It will be the first of many points of order because the opposition are wanting to run a line that they want a longer question time. We are prepared to see a normal question time with ministers answering questions in a succinct and relevant way—in the way that the Deputy Prime Minister has. It is simply a parliamentary tactic by the Leader of the Opposition that ought to be dealt with.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I suggest that we resume answering the question, unless the Leader of the Opposition really wants to continue the argument. I suspect it would be a lot better if we let the Deputy Prime Minister answer the question.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Are the standing orders going to be enforced or not?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House did not have a valid point of order as far as I was concerned.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I will just add two other things. Members are absolutely united about getting increased infrastructure in country areas which we were denied under 13 years of Labor. They agree to disagree about various other aspects, but I tell you one thing: they are absolutely in support of decisions taken by the Telstra board—full marks to that board—following on the federal government's issue of extra spectrum whereby we have resolved the problem created by the ALP legislation to junk analog phones at midnight on 1 January 2000. The CDMA upgraded mobile telephone system will be proceeding separate from the Telstra privatisation matter. It is a good decision. We clean up once again after another Labor mistake which was going to hurt country Australia.61366136Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the comments regarding the outcome of the 1967 constitutional referendum? What is the government's response to those comments?6136Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—My attention has been drawn to some comments made in Adelaide last night by the member for Oxley regarding the 1967 referendum. Let me read what the member said. I found the statement made by the member quite extraordinary for two reasons. This is what she had to say:They didn't have the right to vote until the Australian people, in the referendum of 1967 when they cast that vote—when they believed that Aboriginals should have the right the vote and should be treated equally, the same as everyone else.She then went on to say:But if Australians knew today what was foreshadowed for them, they would have thought twice about casting that vote because they were looking at giving the Aboriginal race equality.There are two major areas of concern in that statement. By far the most sinister of those is that the member has actually entertained the notion that one section of the Australian community should not have the vote. Stripped of any kind of rhetoric, any kind of excuse, any kind of explanation, what the member for Oxley was saying last night was that she actually contemplates the notion that one section of the Australian community should not have the vote.I would have thought that, whatever our differences on other issues are, we all believe—as the coalition government believes—that all Australians should be treated equally. I certainly believe that. It has been a cornerstone of the policies that the government has followed since March of 1996 that all Australians should be equal under the law, they should all be entitled to an equal dispensation from that law and they should all be equally accountable to that law.We on this side of the House do not believe in one law for indigenous Australians and another law for other Australians. Equally, we believe that the protection of the law should be equally available to indigenous Australians as it is to other sections of the Australian community. The very notion that you would think twice about giving a section of the Australian community the vote, which is after all the most basic of all democratic rights, is not only a notion that I reject, and I believe all members of this parliament ought to reject, but a notion that I know the overwhelming majority of Australians would reject. That, of course, was the most serious element of the statement.But the other element of the statement which I find quite extraordinary is, of course, that it betrays a complete ignorance of what the 1967 referendum was all about. The 1967 referendum was not about giving indigenous Australians the vote. The 1967 referendum was about counting indigenous Australians in the census and about giving coextensive legal authority to the Commonwealth parliament to legislate for the Aboriginal people. Indeed, indigenous people in Australia in some parts of the country had had the vote since Federation, with those areas of the country where the vote did not exist prior to the mid-1960s being dealt with by legislation in the mid-1960s repairing the injustice in relation to the franchise in some areas of the country.I am very proud, of course, to record the fact that the 1967 referendum was sponsored by the coalition government led by the late Harold Holt, and the Deputy Prime Minister in that government was in fact the late Sir John McEwen, the then leader of the Country Party. I think it is an abhorrent notion that anybody should contemplate taking the vote away from any section of the Australian community. And I would also make the statement that, before any member of this House gets into a debate about the implications of a referendum, they ought to at least understand what occurred at the referendum.61376137Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is again to the Deputy Prime Minister. Has he seen remarks of his parliamentary colleagues, the members for Dawson, Hinkler, Capricornia and Kennedy, that Telstra should not be sold off? Has he seen the remarks this morning of the Queensland National Party President, David Russell, that `it is not National Party policy to support the full sale of Telstra'? Why isn't the Deputy Prime Minister listening to his own party, let alone the whole of rural Australia? Why won't the Deputy Prime Minister stand up to the Prime Minister on the sale of Telstra?6137Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I have seen a range of remarks in relation to the telecommunications issue and Telstra issue, and I have listened carefully and met with a wide range of people. I want to make two points. Firstly, the objective of upgrading, including untimed local calls, in outback Australia in the extended zones remains an absolutely legitimate objective. We were going to speed up the implementation of that objective by providing a basis on which it could be paid for through the privatisation of Telstra.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—We do not have happen to believe in printing money on this side. We do happen to believe in fixing up the problem and making real progress available from the improved technologies.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why sell?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I acknowledge freely that there is a robust debate about the levels of ownership of Telstra, but that leads me to the second point. You sold Qantas, Mr Beazley, just in case you don't remember, and you sold the Commonwealth Bank. Your left wing were all up your ribs at the particular time. But the funny thing about that is: did your selling of Qantas stop you from leaving in place correct aviation navigation legislation, correct aviation regulation, correct aviation control? Of course it did not. Likewise, with the Commonwealth Bank, is there separate overarching legislation applying to the inspection and dealing with all the banks? Of course there is. Likewise what did you vote against in the Senate? What did your Labor senators vote against, as they reflected on the paternal relationship of Senator Colston to his father in a very grubby way, for which you should all apologise? You should dissociate yourself from Senator Faulkner with his attack on Senator Colston's father—and you should do it now. If you had any courage at all, you would stand up at your next question and apologise for Senator Faulkner's attack on Senator Colston's father.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. The Deputy Prime Minister will address his reply through the chair.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—One other thing you voted down was increased penalties on Telstra, Optus and Vodafone to provide repair service in adequate time and to provide adequate levels of service to subscribers right across Australia. You voted that down in the Senate. You should hang your head in shame.61386138McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House the wide ranging safeguards for all Australians in the area of telecommunications, which are locked in irrespective of who owns Telstra? Is it the case that opponents of the full sale of Telstra not only oppose relieving future generations of Beazley's Labor debt, but also stand in the way of massive communications infrastructure improvements—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a correct form in the House for addressing members of this House, Mr Speaker, and it ought be dealt with here.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will also withdraw imputations within the question—the way they are. That question really needs to be rephrased. I suggest you might do so.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Rule it out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. I have asked the member to rephrase his question. The honourable member for Griffith still has the call, but he will rephrase his question.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.KK6Mr McDOUGALL—Mr Speaker, I will repeat the second part of the question. Is it the case that opponents of the full sale of Telstra not only oppose relieving future generations of debt but also stand in the way of massive communications infrastructure improvements in rural and regional Australia?6138Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I start my answer to the honourable member's question—and I think those who are interested in future generations will pay close attention to this—by saying that at 30 June 1998, the total federal government debt of Australia stood at just over $82,000 million. Almost all of that had been accumulated by the man who sits opposite me when he was the Minister for Finance in the Keating government.One of the great benefits to Australia of disposing of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra is that in one hit we would remove almost half of the national debt Kim Beazley left to the future generations of Australia. That is of itself the greatest single argument in favour of the government's policy. I reassert to the parliament that the government remains committed to the full privatisation of Telstra. That remains government policy because we believe that removing the debt burden on future generations is desirable. We are not people who believe in loading future generations of Australians with debt. When Mr Keating and the Leader of the Opposition ran Australia, they loaded billions of dollars each year of debt onto future generations. If we can proceed with the full privatisation of Telstra, we will achieve by the year 2001 a situation where this country will have the lowest national debt level of virtually any country in the Western world.There are those who sit opposite and those in the Australian community who apparently regard that as being of no account, but the benefits of reducing debt are enormous. You have lower interest rates. The money you would otherwise use to service that debt can be used to build roads, to service hospitals, to provide better education benefits, to build-up our defence forces and to do all of those things that the men and women of Australia want. Instead of that, the Leader of the Opposition would rather have $40 billion that could be used to retire debt and the interest savings on that debt retirement tied up in public ownership. Yet this is the same man who sold the Commonwealth Bank. This is the same man who sold Qantas. This is the same man who said one thing to the Australian people before the election and said another when he was put into office. No wonder the Labor member for Dickson, Mrs Cheryl Kernot, had this to say.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hooray!ZD4Mr HOWARD—No wonder the Age on 26 February 1996 reported the member for Dickson as saying, `I think Labor in opposition won't sell Telstra, but I'm more worried about Labor in government.'5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—He's conceding! She's the member!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Kingsford-Smith! UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hooray!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members of the opposition will remain silent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent if they wish question time to continue.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—You have got it right.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect. I asked you to remain silent. If you keep intervening, I do not wish you to stay here.SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am the member for Dickson and I am not a member of the Labor Party.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Whatever she is, this is what she had to say: `I think Labor in opposition won't sell Telstra, but I'm more worried about Labor in government.' The major reason the government remains committed to the sale of Telstra is that we believe in reducing and not increasing the federal government debt of Australia. We inherited almost $100 billion of government debt from the Keating-Beazley government. We have set about reducing that debt by turning an annual deficit of over $10 billion into a surplus of over $2½ billion. On current projections, with the sale of Telstra, by the year 2002 we will have a debt to GDP ratio of only 1½ per cent. It will be amongst the lowest in the industrialised world, and those who oppose the full privatisation of Telstra stand for a debt ridden Australia in the 21st century. They stand against relieving future generations of young Australians from that debt burden. They are against using the interest payments to provide better education, better schools, better roads and better defence facilities. In other words, they have a backward-looking, negative attitude towards the development of Australia.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House is silent! The level of conversation in the chamber is far too high.61396139Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that you inherited the second lowest level of public debt in the industrialised world when you came into office—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Has the Prime Minister seen the remarks of his parliamentary colleagues, the Liberal members for Leichhardt and McEwen, that Telstra should not be sold off? Why isn't the Prime Minister listening to members of his own party who represent constituencies in provincial and rural Australia and who are no doubt aware of the fact that you inherited the second lowest level of public debt?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has concluded his question.6139Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In 1995, the federal government debt to GDP ratio in this country was in the order of 20 per cent. On current projections, that debt will, before the privatisation of Telstra, be reduced to about 10 per cent of GDP by the turn of the century. If you factor into that the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, you have it reduced to a bare 1.5 per cent of GDP. In other words, it would be, I believe, probably the lowest in the entire OECD area.I remind the Leader of the Opposition of a speech that he made when he addressed the National Press Club on 24 August 1994. It was under the engaging title of `Paying for our future: The changing role of public investment'. In those days, privatisation was all the rage. In those days, the brave men of the New South Wales right and their acolytes within the Labor government stood out against the left wing of the Labor Party at the national conferences. It was only George Campbell, Daryl Melham and Laurie Ferguson who were running around opposing privatisation. They had these very, very strange views and, in those days, the current Leader of the Opposition as finance minister was a devoted supporter of privatisation, as were those who sit opposite.He was, after all, the man who promised Australians he would not sell the Commonwealth Bank, but he did. He was the man who promised Australians that he would not sell Australian Airlines, but he did. He was the man who promised Australians he would not sell Qantas, but he did. He was the man who ran around Australia at that particular time telling Australians what wonderful benefits would flow from the privatisation of national assets. This is one of the gems that came out of that speech in 1994:Trying to preserve the past may seem to be the best way to protect jobs, but in the longer term it could be a major impediment to achieving a productive future.That was a very prophetic sort of statement, and it got even closer to the bone. He went on to say:The Government's commitment to the deficit reduction strategy means that a halt to privatisation would result in a direct cut to government programs.I repeat that. He said:The Government's commitment to the deficit reduction strategy means that a halt to privatisation would result in a direct cut to government programs.He then went on to say:Rather we are seeking ways to make our infrastructure dollar go further, and in a broader sense to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are directed at the areas of highest priority, such as unemployment.That is what the Leader of the Opposition had to say when he had some skerrick of economic responsibility when he was a member of the former government. If those arguments were potent in 1994, they are even more potent in 1998 because in 1998 we are grappling with that $95 billion of federal government debt that Mr Beazley and Mr Keating left to the incoming coalition government. We are grappling with the need to set up a relatively debt free 21st century for the future generations of Australians.I believe very strongly that, by using the proceeds of the sale of Telstra, in one stroke we will reduce by 50 per cent—I repeat: in one stroke we will reduce by 50 per cent—the current federal government debt of Australia, which is about $82 billion. We will cut that in half in one stroke. We will get rid of the interest payments. We will have some money for a social bonus. We will be able to pay for things that would not otherwise be available.The Leader of the Opposition talks about dedicating the dividend out of Telstra. If you take the dividend from Telstra and put that into rural services, where do you get the money to pay for the schools towards which the dividend is now going? What do you do with those services? What do you do with the Medicare services?The government remains absolutely committed to the full privatisation of Telstra. We think it is the right policy. It will relieve future generations of Australians from the awful debt burden left by Mr Keating and Mr Beazley.61406140Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the benefits for taxpayers of the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra? What implications would alternative proposals for the future of Telstra have for taxpayers?6140Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I can inform the people of Australia of the benefits that they get by reducing government debt. When this government came to office, when I became Treasurer, we had to raise $10 billion of Australian tax to pay for Mr Beazley's debt. Every Australian born comes into Australia owing taxes to service the Beazley debt.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The defensive strategy is silly obviously, but there is a standing order that applies to the way in which you address people in this chamber, and it is being routinely offended by ministers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is correct. All ministers should answer through the chair. I ask the Treasurer and others to do so.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I will, Mr Speaker. When this government came to office, and when I became Treasurer, we had to raise $10 billion to service the debt which Mr Beazley, as finance minister, had run up on behalf of the Australian people. I just want to put this in context because I know how touchy he is. He is unquestionably Australia's worst finance minister. There is no doubt that the worst finance minister in Australian history was none other than Mr Beazley.When the Fraser government came to office in 1975, Commonwealth government net debt was $0.7 billion. When the Hawke government came to office in 1983, the Commonwealth government net debt was $9.7 billion. When Kim Beazley relinquished control of the finance ministry—remember, debt had been $9.7 billion when Labor came to office—when Kim Beazley ceased being finance minister of Australia, Commonwealth government net debt, which had been $9 billion when Labor came to office, was $95.8 billion. In five years, including the two years when Mr Beazley was the finance minister, Commonwealth net debt went from $16 billion to $95 billion.Until 1990—in 90 years of Federation—Commonwealth net debt had got to $16 billion. Mr Beazley came in as finance minister and, after five years, took it from $16 billion to $96 billion. When we came to office, we as a government had to raise $10,000 million of taxes just to pay the interest bill. Not only was that just paying the interest bill, that did not repay one dollar of the Beazley Labor debt. There was no plan to repay any dollar of the Beazley Labor debt, and the only opportunity to repay the Beazley Labor debt is by running surpluses.JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing order No. 80. Would you please enforce it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his answer—in accordance with standing orders.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me give the House the figures.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will find out what it is now.CT4Mr COSTELLO—If, in that first budget, this government had not had to raise $10 billion to service the Beazley debt, we could have cut company tax in half.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer might well refer to the member for Brand either as the Leader of the Opposition or according to the seat to which he belongs.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Just to put some perspective on the $10 billion of debt servicing costs which this government was left, it is half of the company tax collections in this country. If the government did not have to service the legacy of Labor debt, company tax could have been cut in half. The petrol excise, at 43c a litre, raises over $6 billion. If this government did not have to service the cost of Labor debt, you could drop the price of petrol by 43c a litre. If this government did not have to raise $10 million to service Labor debt, the fringe benefits tax could be abolished three times over. That is the servicing cost of $10 billion of debt. Now we see what Labor says. Not only did Labor say, `We put the country in hock. We are going to make Australians pay taxes for endless decades to cover up for the costs of that,'—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Oh, blame Labor for it all!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Brisbane.CT4Mr COSTELLO—but Labor now says it will oppose any plan to get Australia out of hock again. This is a government which has faced up to the failures of Labor. We turned the Australian budget around. We are not going to sit back here and let Labor continue to penalise future generations for its own wanton financial mismanagement. We have an opportunity to reduce the crushing burden of debt for Australians. We have an opportunity to give Australians the opportunity to pay taxes for their health, their roads and their schools, and not to pay taxes for the failure of the Beazley-Keating administration.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will draw his answer to a conclusion.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We have an opportunity to get Australia back on track again. We have an opportunity to undo the wanton damage that Mr Beazley, the worst finance minister—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will draw his answer to a conclusion.CT4Mr COSTELLO—in the history of federation incurred on this country, and we intend to do it.61426142McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—My question is to the member for Brand. Can he advise the House why it is imperative that notice No. 12 standing in his name on the Notice Paper be brought on for debate immediately?6142Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I would be very pleased to do that. If we were able to bring on item No. 12, it would give us an opportunity to do a corrective to the sorts of statements, the nonsense, that have emerged from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in this question time. We would, under that particular notice of motion, be able to discuss the fact that they inherited the second lowest level of public debt in the Western world. They want to sell Australia's greatest national asset to take us to the lowest level of public debt in the Western world. Bully for them! If, in fact, we were able to debate item No. 12—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The members of the government will remain silent. I cannot determine the extent to which the Leader of the Opposition is in order if they keep on talking.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—it would give us an opportunity to discuss the fact that, within about four or five years of the total sale of Telstra, you will be losing more in forgone dividend than you will be in relieved public debt interest. Within four or five years, you would be losing more. This is like selling Kalgoorlie before the gold rush. This is a mug's decision. This is not privatising.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will address his remarks within the confines of the standing orders.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Item No. 12, for example, would let us talk about the foreign debt to GDP ratio—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You may not do so. You are only to talk about why it should be brought on.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—which has been going through the roof.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition can only address the reason why that would be brought on.5M6DONDASMr Dondas—Stick to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory will remain silent. He is not in his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—We ought to be discussing item No. 12 because it would give us an opportunity to put forward a corrective—this lot can dish it out, but they cannot take it—to the sorts of nonsense points that have been made by them. The position that they inherited was described as `better than good in parts', as far as the economy was concerned, by the Prime Minister himself.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will remain within the narrow embraces permitted to him, and he knows this.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—The narrow embrace does, in fact, give us an opportunity to say—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Very little.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—why you would want to talk about the fiscal position in which this Commonwealth found itself. Given that we are discussing here the question of debt—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, you are not. You are discussing why it should be brought on.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—I would have thought item No. 12 would have been a very good one to bring on right now to discuss the fact that you inherited a level of public debt—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are not within the standing orders.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—lower than Maggie Thatcher's Britain, lower than Ronald Reagan's United States—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will either respond within the standing orders or not at all.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—lower than Helmut Kohl's Germany.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—If we were able to do that, we could bring a bit of perspective to this Telstra debate.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will listen to me for a moment. You have concluded your answer.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Was that it? Was that the punch line?DT4CREANMr Crean—He got you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When I have some silence from the Treasurer and the member for Hotham, I will call the member for Moreton.61436143Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to an article in last Sunday's Sun-Herald in which the director or secretary of a number of companies which were alleged to have failed to lodge annual returns was said to be a certain person. I also refer to assertions in the Senate last week that there is no evidence to date that such a person even exists. Can the Attorney-General inform the House of the process for dealing with any such questions of potential impropriety?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest to the honourable member: you are getting very close to asking the Attorney-General for a legal opinion. I think, to the degree to which it falls directly within the timing of any matters, it might be just in order. The Attorney-General should be very careful that he does not express a legal opinion on a matter that is not now to be answered in that way.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What have you got to say about Callinan?6143Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Mr Speaker—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Tell us about what the High Court—the Federal Court had to say about the High Court judge.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Hey, you—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! I did not hear the remark, but I believe that what you said was against the standing orders. I ask the member for Batman to withdraw his remark.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What about?ET4BEVISMr Bevis—What did he say?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—It was about a judge!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Somebody was talking about a member of the judiciary. I point out to all members of the House that any reference to members of the judiciary is against the standing orders.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I certainly heard the interjection from the member for Batman and it was unquestionably an aspersion upon a serving High Court judge and—ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Oh, no! Come on.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—What was said?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane has been warned, and so has the member for Prospect.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—And I would put to you as a point of order, Mr Speaker, that members of parliament should not throw aspersions on serving High Court judges and the remark should be withdrawn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman will withdraw his remarks.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—With all respects, Mr Speaker, it was about what the Federal Court said about a High Court judge. It is in order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw his remarks.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Why?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that, if the honourable member wishes to stay in the House, in the circumstances where it appears to have created offence, he withdraws the remarks. I did not hear them, but I ask the honourable member, as there has been offence taken to it—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, perhaps it is appropriate that I repeat the remarks so as to establish whether they are in order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will withdraw the remarks.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—With all respects, it was about what the Federal Court said about a High Court judge. I asked the Attorney-General what did he think about the views of a Federal Court judge. What do you think about Callinan and what are your views on that?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman will withdraw the remarks.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I would like to know how they are offensive.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman will withdraw the remarks and I will explain why after you have withdrawn them.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I withdraw the remarks with a view to an explanation from you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The reason that I asked you to withdraw the remarks is that there is a capacity within this House to talk in a very, very limited way about matters regarding the judiciary.QI4PRICEMr Price—But we can still talk.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Yes, but you cannot interject, as the honourable member for Chifley knows so well; neither can the honourable member for Batman. On neither basis do I believe it enhances the dignity of the House and I ask, therefore, the Attorney-General to resume his response.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—Any allegation of illegality or impropriety should be properly investigated. When a matter alleging illegality or impropriety is drawn to the attention of this government it is referred to the appropriate authority for independent examination. The matters referred to by the member for Moreton appear to relate to compliance or non-compliance with corporations and securities legislation. The appropriate independent authority in relation to the investigation of allegations of illegality or impropriety in that respect is with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. It is up to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to determine whether it will investigate a matter and, if it will, in what manner. Any person who has information relevant to an investigation of such matters by ASIC is able to provide it to the commission.61446144Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. I refer him to the Sydney Morning Herald article of 8 July alleging that the former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating secretly sold his piggery interest to an Indonesian businessman for some $US6 million. I also refer you, Treasurer—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Can the honourable gentleman start his question again? I do not know where this fits into ministerial responsibility.3V5Mr RICHARD EVANS—I refer the Treasurer to a Sydney Morning Herald article on 8 July alleging the former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating secretly sold his piggery interest to an Indonesian businessman for approximately $US6 million. I also refer the Treasurer to documents tabled in the Senate last week by Senator Hill which provided further insight into this complex transaction and strongly indicates a—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The matter is not within the standing orders. The question is out of order.Government members interjecting—WI4REITHMr Reith—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: you can hardly rule on a question until the member has had an opportunity to actually ask his question so as to establish the validity of the question going to a matter within the jurisdiction of the Treasurer.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the House resumes its silence first. The honourable member for Cowan will resume his seat and the honourable member for Lindsay will not interject. The reason the question is out of order is that you are now in the second part of the question and neither part to this stage relates other than to an individual. The normal course of question time in this place is that questions related specifically to individuals are normally required to be put on notice, and there is a procedure under our standing orders that if you are making allegations about individuals they need to be substantiated. The question is out of order.61446144Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen yesterday's National Australia Bank survey showing Australian business confidence during June at its lowest level since the middle of 1991 and the predictions of NAB itself and a number of independent economists that there is now a significant chance of Australia sliding into recession? What is your current advice from Treasury about the prospects for negative growth in the June quarter and beyond and can we expect a significant downward revision of your present growth, employment and budget surplus estimates?6145Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—We will be announcing shortly the outcome in relation to the budget for the past year which will give a good indication as to the state of the budget and the revenues that are involved. Can I say in relation to growth that the government has put forward its projections in relation to growth and in relation to the budget.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. I am having difficulty hearing the answer and I suspect everybody else is too.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Australia currently has one of the highest growth rates in the world, not only in the Asian region—which is mostly in recession—but in the developed world as well. Australian prospects for the next year of course will be affected by the international downturn and, as a result, we have already marked growth down in our budget forecast. This is a very serious development in relation to Asia. With the exception of China, it could well be that all of the countries of Asia are now in recession.As far as Australia is concerned, we come into this external downturn in a strong position with low inflation, with low interest rates, with a budget which is in surplus and with a program to reduce debt. But let me ask this: if this government had not put the budget into surplus, if we had persisted with the Labor Party's $10 billion deficit, where would we be now? Where would Australia be?VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The specific question was: what was the Treasurer's current advice from Treasury about the pros pects for negative growth in the June quarter and beyond? It is not—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The deputy leader will resume his seat.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I make two observations in concluding. The first point is this: probably one of the best things that could have been done for the economic management of this country was the decision of this government two years ago to repair the budget. If we had continued $10 billion deficits, as was proposed then by the Australian Labor Party, if we had gone into an external downturn in deficit, if we had added another $20 billion of two $10 billion a year deficits, then Australia would have been terribly exposed. The Labor Party were wrong over the period from 1990 to 1996 and they were wrong thereafter.The second point is this: as we go into an external environment which will be most challenging for Australia, the best thing we can do is we can attend to putting our house in order by reducing debt. The Labor Party's prescription, which is to keep Australia in a high debt position during an adverse external downturn, will ensure that this country would be terribly and fragilely exposed. If the Labor Party had kept Australia in deficit, if the Labor Party can succeed in keeping the government in debt—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that at the beginning of question time and earlier today the Leader of the House advised the House that we would have a question time of 45 minutes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order and the honourable member knows it.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—My point of order is that the 45 minutes is now up. The clerks at the table—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member, as a former Speaker, should know that question time's duration is at the discretion of the government.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I take it as a compliment that you are now trying to close off question time. An opposition trying to close down question time is a unique occurrence in federal history. We take your point that you would like to close question time. Let me finish by saying that if this government had not decided to turn around the Australian budget two years ago, if we had run a $10 billion deficit last year, if we had run it in 1996-97, in 1997-98, and in 1998-99, as Labor wanted to do, if we had increased Commonwealth net debt, if we had put an exposed Australia into a fragile Asian position, then the prospects for Australia would have been very, very worrying.Now is the time for good economic policy. Now is not the time for the economic populism which is being practised by the Leader of the Opposition in concert with the member for Oxley in a kind of twosome race to see who can be the most irresponsible. Now is the time, in the midst of this big external challenge, for good economic policy. Now is the time for good budget policy. Now is the time to repay debt. Now is the time to keep inflation down. Now is the time to get benefits to home buyers with low interest rates. Now is the time for a better tax system. Now is the time to secure Australia's future. There is one thing that Mr Beazley will never be able to do: he will never be able to run a credible economic policy.61466146Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Opposition members will remain silent.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—GK6KELLYMiss Jackie Kelly—You cannot take a point of order on a question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will hear the point of order after I have heard the question.3V5Mr RICHARD EVANS—Is the government, Treasurer, committed to ensuring that all taxpayers pay their fair share of tax?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—What about Parer?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.3V5Mr RICHARD EVANS—Will you, Treasurer, give an assurance that sham transactions designed to avoid tax will not be permitted?DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We asked the government to have a full question time and they said it should not go beyond 45 minutes. This question is being asked because they mucked it up last time. The plagiarist of the House could not get it right then.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have made your point of order. You will resume your seat.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the opposition this morning were complaining that 45 minutes was not enough. I think a few extra minutes is very generous.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Let me make the response that I gave to others—that is, question time's duration, as everyone in this place should know, is at the discretion of the Prime Minister.DT4CREANMr Crean—It is on that point, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have ruled on the point of order. The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The point of order has been heard and ruled on.DT4CREANMr Crean—I have another point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Do you have another point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—My other point of order is this: I accept the fact that question time is at the direction of the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is not for you to accept or not.DT4CREANMr Crean—However, they advised us before this happened that it should only be 45 minutes. They have broken it because they mucked up to get the muckup in this House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain silent. If the member for Hotham persists in making points of order which are not, he can expect to be dealt with in the appropriate way.6147Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I assure the honourable member for Cowan that as far as the government is concerned the government believes that all taxpayers should pay their fair share of tax. This government has been more active than any other in ensuring that that is the case. This was the government that closed down the R&D syndicates, which the member for Hotham protected as a tax minimisation device. This was the government that was prepared to deal with superannuation. This was the government that introduced thin capitalisation rules. This was the government that changed the foreign investment rules. This was the government that introduced the measures against dividend streaming. This was the government that introduced the measures against trading in franking credits.From time to time people send to me as the Treasurer material which they believe indicates that taxpayers have not been paying their just and due liabilities. I should make it clear that the administration of the tax laws in this country is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Taxation. Under the Income Tax Assessment Act, the affairs of taxpayers in the hands of the Commissioner of Taxation are protected by privacy legislation and they are not disclosed to me or to anybody else. In relation to any tax matters that are sent to me, I pass them on to the Commissioner of Taxation, which is his responsibility. In relation to any other person who has material which they believe indicates or warrants an investigation, it should also be passed on to the Commissioner of Taxation for a due investigation.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—How much did you get for your Clayton Utz consultancy and who actually paid you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Kingsford-Smith.CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am sure that the Commissioner of Taxation will ensure that they do receive due investigation and that the Commissioner of Taxation will ensure that the law is properly enforced. I want to conclude by saying one thing. I was rather amused by the member for Hotham who walked to the dispatch box and complained that the government was going to put muckup in the House of Representatives. All I can say is that you and your dirty tricks, little eunuch, have been the world exemplars of that little tactic.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I have finally been persuaded by the member for Hotham. His charm, his eloquence and the sheer power of his advocacies invite me to ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am glad to hear that you are persuaded.Questions Without Notice614761476147Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—On the last occasion we met, the honourable member for Dickson asked me a question about whether it was possible for a custodial parent to receive, for example, between $50,000 and $100,000 a year in tax-free child support as well as being eligible for supporting parent benefits and other concessions. I have been advised that child support has not affected the sole parent pension, now called the parenting payment, since 1993 when payments for children were separated from income support payments. The reason is that child support is money paid for children and thus should not reduce the parent's income.I am advised that the scenario that the honourable member put to the House is unrealistic in that there is a cap on the amount of child support that has to be paid under the statutory formula. The maximum amount is around $31,000 in circumstances where the payer has an income of over $97,000 and is paying for as many as five children. It is possible for a payee to be receiving more child support than the $31,000 figure if they are being paid child support by more than one taxpayer, but this is also a highly unlikely scenario. Parents can make private arrangements to pay more than the formula amount. Although this, too, is not unusual, I am told that any additional amount received would be the subject of the maintenance income test.Miscellaneous61486148Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before we proceed to the tabling of papers, I would like to advise the House that this will be the last occasion on which Mr Ian Cochran, the Clerk Assistant (Procedure), will be in this House in his role. He intends to retire on 5 August.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Too young!10000Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He seems young to us all, but age eventually catches up with us all, as the member for Lalor and I are finding out, and a few others. Mr Cochran joined the House on 24 January 1955. I understand that after some discussion Mr Cochran was released by the Auditor-General's office in Victoria to join the Department of the House of Representatives in Canberra. He has worked at all levels in the department. He made his mark very early as Speakers Secretary and then later as Secretary to the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications. This committee's report presented in 1964 was to set the future direction for the publication of all government and parliamentary documents.Ian Cochran demonstrated the dedication and enthusiasm displayed in that committee to all the tasks he has performed in the service of the House, but it was particularly noticeable when he occupied the position of Serjeant-at-Arms, which he did with great distinction from 1970 to 1973 and from 1977 to 1982. A number of us would remember with interest June 1981 when there were a number of women demonstrators and when Ian had some interesting experiences. Ian was promoted to his present position of Clerk Assistant in 1986 and most members would know him for his willing help with the drafting of amendments. Ian's record in the House of Representatives is a long and meritorious one and has been recognised by his being awarded the Public Service Medal. We wish Ian a long and happy retirement with his wife, Julie, and children, Peter and Jennifer. Thanks, Ian, for a job very well done.14:58:006148Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—On indulgence, I take the opportunity to add the government's endorsement to your remarks on the occasion marking Ian Cochran's retirement. On behalf of all members of the government, we wish him well, but more particularly mark his long service with a tribute to his professionalism to the task. We are very well served in this parliament. In all the work he has done, Ian has met the very high standards of those who provide this most important service to the parliament and, through the parliament, to the people of Australia. I had not appreciated that the retirement was so soon. He is so young and fresh. But I do wish him well and again thank him on behalf of all members on this side for a job very well done.14:59:006148Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I would like to add my remarks to that. I am a little disappointed that I did not know that this retirement was imminent. I would really like to pay Ian a considerable tribute because his service to this parliament has been very long. Caught a little unawares, I have not had the proper opportunity to research the CV. There is a part of the CV I do remember very well because he was the Serjeant-at-Arms when I came into this place in 1980.The Serjeant-at-Arms is the one in this chamber I think who is the most interestingly dressed—whatever the Speakers might like to contemplate—and also has the most interesting role. As I look at Ian, who is the gentlest of individuals as well as the most erudite, I still find it extraordinarily difficult to conceive of him as the person with the traditional responsibility of knocking down the swords of duelling members. I do think that it is just as well for him that role has never been imposed upon him; it probably actually has not been imposed upon any Serjeant-at-Arms much since the seventeenth century. Nevertheless, it was one of the tasks in the old House of Commons; the difference between the front benches was two sword points, and the job of the Serjeant-at-Arms was to insert between the sword points either a metallic object or his person. It is probably a factor in his long service to this place that it was not a duty ever imposed upon him.But he has, of course, been a loyal servant to the parliament for a very lengthy period of time. We in this parliament have only rudimentary knowledge of the standing orders and the opportunities that they supply. We get better at it as we go a bit longer in the service. But then we tend not to be up to date with the standing orders, as they do change from time to time. So nobody in the chamber who serves here as an elected member is at all expert. We are totally reliant for conformity to the standing orders on those who give us advice. The advice is always fairly given, impartially given and given in secret, not passed on to other forces in the chamber—and that is as it should be. Ian has played a marvellous role over the years in that regard, and we thank him for his service.15:01:006149McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—On my own behalf and that of the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin), could we say a fond farewell to Ian. The points that were raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) are probably the explanation for Ian having stayed so thin for so long—just in case those sword points got in the way. I think the thing that the member for Cunningham and I will remember most about Ian will be that he has been the corporate memory of the department—and for that, his loss will be most severely felt.Nothing much happened in this place over the many, many long years that Ian was here that he could not very quickly put his finger on. It used to get in the way of both the member for Cunningham and me and no doubt you, Mr Speaker, and Mr Halverson that, with all the best plans you could come up with, Cochran would always come in and say, `Well, of course, in 1928 they wanted to do that, and it wasn't a good idea then.' When the clerk or the deputy came in and told you that, you would say. `Oh yeah, I'll go and have a look at that.' But when Ian came in and told you that, you knew that was in fact what had happened.Ian has always been a very decent, hard working officer of the department. But that corporate memory about the House of Repre sentatives department that he will take with him will be something I am sure that the clerk will miss and that you, Mr Speaker, and future Speakers will miss. Particularly on my own behalf and that of the member for Cunningham, we wish you well in your retirement, Ian.Delegation Reports61496149614910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—For the information of honourable members, and on the eve of a visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, and in the light of the general concern in the House and in Australia about the stalled peace process in the Middle East, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, 5 to 21 June 1998.Auditor-General's Reports614910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 2 for 1998-99 entitledPerformance audit—Commercial Support Program—Department of Defence .Ordered that the report be printed.Documents61496149Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—A paper is tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the paper will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Report, October 1997—Industrial elections: The role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in conducting industrial elections—Government response.Matters of Public Importance6149614910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The uncertainty in rural and regional Australia and the disarray in the coalition's ranks caused by the Prime Minister's plan to sell off Telstra.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:04:006150Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker—Motion (by Mr Truss) proposed:That the business of the day be called on.Opposition members interjecting— Mr SPEAKER—I called the Leader of the Opposition, but then the minister rose. In circumstances like this, as all members know— An opposition member interjecting— 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I did just then. Question put:15:08:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)74Andrew, 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.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. 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.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Kelly, D. M. 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.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. 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. Worth, P. M.41Albanese, A. Andren, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Campbell, G.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.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.Wilton, G. S.Anderson, J. D. Adams, D. G. H.Cobb, M. R. Baldwin, P. J.Elson, K. S. Melham, D.Halverson, R. G. Willis, R.Jull, D. F. Lee, M. J.Nugent, P. E. Dargavel, S. J.Reid, N. B. Jenkins, H. A.Taylor, W. L. Evans, M. J.Tuckey, C. W. Thomson, K. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills6150Message received from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Bill 1998 Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Bill 1998 Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill 1998 Customs Legislation (Anti-Dumping Amendments) Bill 1998 Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 1998 National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998 National Road Transport Commission Amendment Bill 1998 Payment Systems and Netting Bill 1998 Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance for Farmers) Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998 Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 Bills6151The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Bill 1998Bills6151r4556151Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House, and has agreed to the amendments made by the House.Bills6151r2516151Consideration resumed.15:12:006151McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I want principally to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997, but some very important things need to be put on the record with regard to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 . Most of them have been said by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley).The intellectual property regime, which these two pieces of legislation go to amend, is fundamentally important for the future of the country. It is important nationally and it is important to many individuals. It is important nationally because, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, 21st century industry, 21st century jobs and 21st century investment depend greatly upon the extent to which the intellectual property regime of the country in question is seen as world's best practice. And from today, ours will not be.We are already getting the messages from the United States and there is already recognition in Europe that the intellectual property regime in Australia is being undermined. Therefore, the capacity for us to attract cutting edge investment in those knowledge based industries—not just in the creative industries like music but in software and other things—is undermined from today. So it is very serious nationally. I would like to have more time to dwell on that but I do not. It was, as I said, adequately outlined by the Leader of the Opposition.Individually, it is very important because it is the intellectual property regime that allows creative individuals—in this instance, creative Australians—to receive income from their works. Both those fundamentals of the intellectual property regime are at risk as a result of the amendments to this bill with which we are dealing today and the amendments which we are considering on their return.With regard to copyright bill No. 1, I think we would agree with most of what was in that bill. It has been passed with a lot of agreement in the Senate and in the committee considerations before the Senate. Some of the amendments, particularly with regard to 135ZM, are significant improvements and I welcome them.I want to dwell on only two matters with regard to that. Firstly, the government has wimped on moral rights. It is a very hard issue. The question is in balance in dealing with moral rights in the film industry, and I assume this is where the government has found it too difficult and that has led to the deferral. I accept that it is a very finely balanced argument between those who are concerned that a right that can be waived at the request of an employer is no right at all and those who are concerned that not having a waiver will undermine investment in the industry. They are both arguments of force and they both need serious consideration, but the job of government and of alternative government is to make hard decisions and to deal with the hard questions. If you want to be the government, you should be prepared to make some decisions. You have put it off again until after the election.Our position is clear. It was put on record by the shadow Attorney-General and I reiterate it; that is, we are opposed to an up-front waiver provision. However, we do think there needs to be a review by the Copyright Law Review Committee into the effect of the moral rights regime on the Australian film industry, within 18 months of the entry into force of the legislation. All the other people who will benefit from moral rights legislation who are not in the film industry should not be suffering as a result of this delay. I am seriously disappointed that the government have wimped on the moral rights matter. They clearly will not deal with it now until after the election. After the election, we will deal with it.Schedule 3 of the bill is the other principal cause of concern. That was dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition and I will not take the time of the House to duplicate those things, but we have jobs at risk, investment at risk and standards at risk. The government does not know the facts and has put no alternative mechanism in place for pursuing those jobs, that investment and those standards. It is a reckless and incompetent piece of legislation.I do not wish to dwell any longer on the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997. My principal concern is the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) and its attack on our contemporary music industry on the basis of a flawed and alleged consumer benefit. The trouble with this consumer benefit is that every time you try to find it, it disappears. It is like catching a puff of smoke. It is the gaping hole in this legislation because the evidence for consumer benefit disappears as soon as you try to establish it. It does not take much sophistication to understand the basic economic thesis that underlies it; it is most rudimentary. The problem is that, when you look for the facts, they do not back it up.The countries which do not have parallel imports have lower prices than the countries which do. The countries which have lower prices do not have parallel imports, and the countries from which people are saying they are going to bring in these legal imports—particularly the United States—do not allow parallel imports. (Extension of time granted)The minister himself said, `You cannot give any guarantees in this business.' However, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) purported to do so on 16 October. He said, `The decision will mean the price of Cds will fall by at least $7.' Everybody tried to find the justification for this $7 and nobody could, including the Prime Minister. Then the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) said, `Actually, it will be between $1.60 and $3.' We all thought that was pretty good. The Prime Minister was only 400 per cent out, and that is better than usual. So we asked, `How do you establish this $1.60 to $3?' The minister said it was from the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, but would he release their report to back it up? Not on your life. Every time there is a report that supports the government's argument, it is leaked even before it is officially reported. When it does not suit them, you cannot find it. So you know this argument is not very well backed up.We are trying to find out the value of the US dollar that is incorporated in the report of the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics. It is not a criticism of the bureau; it is a comment about when they did the assessment. The best assessment is that the dollar was about US75c to US80c when they did the review, and they probably would have factored that in. If they did not, why won't the government tell us what the underlying exchange rate was? We all know the dramatic drop in the exchange rate since then says that there is no longer any significant price benefit.There are only four circumstances in which we are going to see a price benefit as a result of these changes: piracy or counterfeit; legitimate imports from countries with lower or nil royalties, so our artists lose; remaindered international material on which no royalties are paid; or when the buying power for multinational retailers is used until they get their stranglehold—until they get rid of the independent retailers—and then the prices will go back up. They might occasionally use a loss leader, but we are going to have a significant impact on specialist music retailers as well as on other areas of the industry.We tried to find someone who supports this government proposal. From time to time they said, `The retailers support it,' but the Music Retailers Association said, `No, we don't.' They tried to say the independent record companies supported it, but Shock and others said, `No, we don't.' The minister kept quoting managers and groups, like Savage Garden, as being underlying supporters of this proposal, but they and their managers said, `No, we are not.' The manufacturers are not in support of it and the people who work in the manufacturing outfits are not in support of it. All the industry is united against this proposal, even those who are in constant conflict at every other stage: the managers against the big record companies and the small record companies against the big ones.The government has done a remarkable thing in uniting all those parties in the music industry which are usually in conflict. They are all opposed to this proposal. That is because there are jobs at risk—particularly jobs for young people. Sound engineers, people who work in the venues, Australian and international artists who are touring, people in the advertising industry, people in the public relations industry, the managers, the roadies—all those people who work in the industry will find their jobs under threat.There will still be a music industry in Australia. People are sometimes a bit melodramatic as if it is the end of the music industry. It is clearly not so because there are talented Australians who will succeed—some of them domestically and some of them internationally—in spite of this ridiculous policy. But what this policy has the capacity to do is to transform our successful exporting, job creating music industry into an importation and distribution industry.Mr Marek interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Capricornia is not in his place and will be silent.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—He'd be wrong even if he was in his place, Mr Deputy Speaker. We also have an enhanced possibility of piracy. The information to enforce piracy is provided by the copyright holder; without that information, Customs is rendered virtually unable to enforce the anti-piracy provisions. We do not disagree with increasing the penalties, but it is no good if you cannot enforce them.We have a remarkable circumstance with regard to discontinued stock where the government, if it must go down this policy track, has not even protected Australian artists from the reimportation of their own material produced overseas. This is policy based on the theory: why have a domestic music industry when you can import one from the United States? It is a very sadly flawed policy but it is not even justified on the normal basis on which some of our industries, quite properly in some instances, have been subjected to competition which is from the multilateral free trade arrangements. (Extension of time granted) I assure the House that, in accordance with the agreement, this will be my last five minutes. I thank honourable members for their cooperation in enabling me to give these three contributions.Competition is often unwelcome by the people who receive it but Australia has received, in many ways, a net benefit from opening our economy to more competition. But this legislation is not in keeping with our international trade obligations. Let me read to the House a brief, which has not been released, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Attorney-General's Department. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said:Our chief concern is that the amended legislation, once passed, should not be vulnerable to challenge on the grounds that it is inconsistent with TRIPS and with general WTO obligations. The manner in which the non-infringing character of parallel imported goods is defined has direct relevance in this regard. Criticism might arise on at least two particular questions: any uncertainty over what constitutes an infringing copy could lead to a claim that there is a loophole permitting illegitimate imports; and, in determining the source of legitimate imports, any preference given to members of the Berne Union could be represented as (or in practice demonstrated to be) in conflict with the most-favoured-nation principle, especially Article 4 of TRIPS—that is, the trade related intellectual property agreement. Those are very serious concerns raised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to which the government has never responded. The department said:The proposed amendment is of course narrow in its immediate objective, as a further definition of the permitted sources of sound recordings to be imported as `non-infringing copies' under this Bill, and the need for clarification of the treatment of musical works embodied in these copies. However, this amendment, and the general legislative approach giving effect to the Government's decision on parallel importation, will be scrutinized closely by major trading partners, notably the US and the EU, from the perspective both of bilateral trade interests and of WTO (particularly TRIPS) obligations, and thus may carry considerable weight. Pressure from these parties would be strengthened if the approach taken on this specific legislative amendment could give rise to claims of inconsistency with the TRIPS Agreement. Further, any suggestion of TRIPS inconsistency should be viewed in the light of the active concern of major WTO members (principally the US and the EU) to ensure that the approach taken by developed countries on intellectual property issues does not set undesirable precedents for developing countries as they interpret and carry out their TRIPS obligations; the manifest US and EU desire, on commercial grounds, to sustain a norm against parallel importation is sufficiently great to make a challenge a realistic possibility were suitable grounds available. We discuss two specific areas of possible vulnerability.This is exposing us to WTO challenge, the very thing the government continues to say we should not do in all the other areas. In most instances on those matters the government is correct and it should be doing the same thing here. The department said:First, there could be a claim that a definition of a `non-infringing copy' would create a legal avenue for imports of pirated goods—albeit in a limited range of factual situations. It goes on to explain that. It expresses real concern that this could be challengeable before the WTO—I do not have time to read it all. The department said:While the proposed amendments do largely address this problem, there are some particular questions that you may wish to clarify during the present drafting phase.It talks about the way in which the legislative formula may leave open a possibility of inadvertently permitting the importation of goods which will infringe the copyright of goods made in Australia. The second concern is the:. . . possibility that a country (especially a non-member of the Berne Union and of the WTO) may have exceptional copyright provisions that lead to anomalous forms of consent or ownership that could serve to legitimise imports of goods generally viewed as illegitimate. . . So that goes to the question of the importation of pirated goods. The department said:The second main area of concern is the possibility of a claim that subsection 2(b)—of the bill—is unacceptable discrimination on the basis of adherence to the Berne Convention—In other words, you could have discrimination between countries in breach of the WTO and you could have piracy allowed in breach of our TRIPS obligations.We have a government which properly claims to be an adherent to our international treaty obligations and expects some of their sitting members—like the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin)—to pay a price in that regard. In most instances the government is correct about that, but here it is ignoring its obligations. It is ignoring them because of an ideological fixation which is wrong on the price front but which will do significant damage to our music industry in Australia. That is why I am delighted to be supporting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) in the commitment that, if elected, we will repeal this legislation.15:28:006154Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—The two issues I wish to address in the copyright legislation are moral rights and the lifting of the ban on parallel imports of CDs. Firstly, in relation to moral rights, I support the removal of schedule 1 so that further consultation between the various stakeholders can take place on the details of the waiver of moral rights at the time a work or a film is commissioned. I think this is particularly important in relation to investment in Australian films and Australian work.If artists want investors to invest in their product, they have to provide the investors with certainty. That certainty will not be forthcoming if, at any time during the production of a film or a mini-series or during the creation of a work, the artist retains a veto power over that investment—it is quite simple. This has the potential to significantly affect the level of investment in Australian films, mini-series and Australian works generally at a time when Australian producers and the Australian film industry are doing great things.Mini-series like Water Rats, which is being distributed in over 40 countries around the world, are raising valuable export dollars for Australia. We have mini-series like Home and Away. We all know of the success of Neighbours, which I think is going to over 60 countries. The success and the legendary role of great Australian films over the last few years have brought about investment because there is certainty for the producers in the quality of the property that is provided by the artists.I strongly support the removal of schedule 1 for the moment. I urge all parties and stakeholders to come to the negotiating table in good faith. I reiterate: there must be a result that enables investors to negotiate a waiver up-front; otherwise there will not be certainty. I understand that the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) was rolled by caucus on this specific issue. He understands the matter. He understands the importance of being able to negotiate a waiver up-front. It results in certainty for investors, which is vitally important.I will move on to the issue of CDs. I have significant reservations about this bill. I have significant reservations about this policy. I think the policy is bad policy at the moment, considering the tenuous position of the Australian music industry and international pressures, particularly with the importation of pirated products from South-East Asia. But I want to separate the issues in relation to CDs. Firstly, I am a strong supporter of free trade, as was the first federal member for North Sydney, who was a free-trader, and I have continued that commitment to free trade. For me, this is not a trade issue; it is about protection of intellectual property, and I fear for the intellectual property belonging to Australian musicians. I fear that Australian musicians find it hard enough in the current small market in Australia to make a living out of their products, let alone having pirated goods—their product—being brought into the country either in a pirated form or in a cheap import form.To quote my colleague the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson), if we cannot stop heroin coming into the country, how are we going to stop pirated CDs? A key point over the next few years will be that Australian artists will have their property rights challenged by pirated goods coming in, particularly from parts of South-East Asia. The second point is the protection of Australian record companies. I understand and recognise the argument that has been put forward about cheaper CDs. It is fair to say that consumers may benefit, but what we are doing is taking a punt on the welfare of the industry so as to potentially give some benefit to consumers. And we are punting on the welfare of the industry. I think it is that serious.The Australian record industry invests a significant amount of money into Australian artists, some of whom make it overseas. (Extension of time granted) The Australian artists who make it in Australia may only break even, or perhaps make a small profit out of their sales in Australia. A lot of Australian artists rely on international sales to give themselves a good foundation upon which to develop their careers, but Australian record companies such as Warners, EMI and BMG—all of them based in my electorate—are making significant investments in talents that may not work, and it is my fear that this bill may dissuade them from making further investment in Australian artists.I want to respond briefly to a couple of points made by the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne) a little earlier. He said that, even if we have imports from overseas, multinationals such as Warners, EMI and BMG benefit. I did not hear the member for Sturt saying that in relation to motor vehicle manufacturing. I understand that Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi and General Motors are all multinationals, and I do not seem to remember that comment being used by the member for Sturt during the debate about car tariffs.On the second issue relating to piracy, it has been pointed out by the member for Sturt that there has been a reversal of the burden of proof; CDs will be too cheap to justify piracy, and our fines have increased. They are all fair points, but at the end of the day I fear that the Australian music industry is going to suffer because all of a sudden we will have a flood of imports.I want to point out—and I want the Australian music industry and Australian artists to understand this—that the hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue is extreme. The Labor Party started the debate about lifting the ban on parallel imports. You started the review about it. All of a sudden, the view looks a little different when the Labor Party go into opposition. I do not forgive the Labor Party for one second for their hypocrisy on this particular issue, and I make the point that, at the end of the day, we all have to stand up for Australian talent. At the end of the day we all have to stand up for the Australian music industry.I fear that this bill may put in peril the investment by Australians and multinationals in Australian talent and in the Australian industry. I think ARIA has put up a very good fight on this issue. I think the record companies have put up a fair fight. The test for them will be how we progress. We want them to continue the level of investment in Australian artists and in the Australian industry. Because I am a team player, I will vote for this bill because it is the right thing to do—I believe in the team and the team coming first—but I put on record my reservations about the impact of this bill.15:36:006156Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I rise to support and endorse the comments of the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey), particularly in relation to CD parallel importing and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . Like the member for North Sydney, as a disciplined member of the government I will be supporting this, but I wish to express my significant reservations about the impact of this measure on 3,400, predominantly family owned, small CD retailing outlets throughout the country, a number of which I have in my electorate. I am also mindful of those Australians who are employed in CD manufacturing. I am also mindful of the impact that this will have on both existing and future artists and the impact on recording opportunities and royalties to Australians. I am also concerned for the capacity that Australia has—whoever is in government, whoever is in power—to police the significant potential we have for the sale and distribution of pirated CD recordings in our country.Unfortunately, under the system through which we operate, when a decision is made by a government, those who are disciplined support it, as I will be supporting this. But I wish to record my reservations and only time will tell if I am wrong. I hope that I am.15:37:006156Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I indicate that we are opposed to what the government is trying to do. As both the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) and the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) have indicated, this is bad policy because it destroys jobs and drives creativity overseas. However, the difference between the Labor Party and those two members I have just mentioned is that we are prepared to do something about it. We are prepared to vote against this legislation, unlike them. They express their concerns, say that they have their doubts and are opposed to it, but will still toe the government line.It was very interesting that, in the fired-up stage of the speech of the member for North Sydney, he said that people have to stand up. The trouble is that he is not prepared to stand up for his constituents. He is prepared to come in here and say all of the things that we have been saying, but at the end of the day, as their member of parliament, he will vote against their jobs. He will vote in favour of creativity and intellectual property going overseas.He also talked about the so-called hypocrisy on Labor's part. Labor's position today is precisely the same as we adopted when we were in government back in 1995. Then, as now, we said we were not prepared to allow parallel imports. Then, as now, we said we were interested in developing the industry base and giving support to Australian music and Australian talent. We did not just say, `We are prepared to stop the imports.' We did not just say, `We are prepared to roll over and do what the industry wants.' We said as well, `We want some reciprocal obligation from the industry. If we are prepared to intervene in terms of support for the industry, we expect a commitment in terms of investment, job opportunities and exports, and we want that commitment quantified.'We got that commitment. We got an industry plan together with the industry—a partnership between government, being prepared to strategically intervene in support of that industry, and the industry, in return, giving a commitment to $270 million over three years in investments in Australian music industry exports. The outcome of that first agreement between the industry and us was to exceed by almost one-third the position agreed to. That is a position that we would replicate. We have already sat down with the industry and said, `We are prepared to continue to support the circumstance of no parallel imports, but we want another agreement, another strategy and another industry plan with this sector.' They have agreed to do that with us.Why won't this government do it? The reason it will not do it with this industry is the same reason it will not do it with any other industry. Be it BHP Steel, Amcor at Burnie, or any of these other industries that are threatened, this government does not care about industry policy or identifying the opportunities for strategic intervention and return, insisting upon reciprocal obligation. That is what we are prepared to do.On coming to office we would repeal this legislation. Let there be no mistake about this. Those who want to stand up for the Australian music and recording industry in this country should vote Labor, because it is only Labor that is prepared to back that industry, not just by stopping parallel imports, but by actually developing a strategy to support job growth, new jobs and new exports in the electorates that the members for North Sydney and Bradfield talk about.There is no hypocrisy on the part of the Labor Party. The hypocrisy is on the part of those two members. They come into this place and say they support jobs for the industry, yet they vote against jobs. They are the same as the member for McEwen (Mrs Bailey) and the member for McMillan (Mr Broadbent) who say in turn that they support regional forest agreements and the textiles, clothing and footwear industry when they are talking to their constituents but, when they get the opportunity in this House to vote, they vote against jobs, security and opportunity.This is another example of where Labor has been prepared to sit down with industry and not just identify their concerns, but get a commitment from them. It is only by this sort of approach that we will grow this nation; that we will be able to grow investment off our creative strengths as well as our natural resource base. This is a classic example of an industry prepared to make a commitment, but it is another example of an industry that the government will let down.It is only by returning a Labor government to power that we will get support for the industry. On coming to office we would repeal this legislation, develop a new industry strategy and get another commitment to jobs growth and investment, just as we did when we were last in office. I will be looking forward to those two members voting with us as they have spoken. (Time expired)15:43:006157Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—It is with a level of pleasure that I rise to speak about the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . The reality is that the copyright law as it is now is acting well outside what it is intended to be. In other words, it stifles enterprise, rather than protecting intellectual property. Plainly and simply, copyright law should not be used to promulgate restrictive trade and anti-competitive practices in any form whatsoever, and that includes in principle packaging and labelling and the issue of video games, better known as pinball machines and arcade games.We only have to look back at the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee of October 1997 on its consideration of the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 . It considered that copyright law should be used for the purposes of the protection of intellectual property, and not to create other and additional non-tariff barriers to imports. That was stated on page 64 of that report. It is quite interesting and that is why I support the importation of goods under copyright packaging and labelling amendments, with the controls being removed over the parallel importation.Having been in the import industry in sporting goods for many years and having had some exclusive distribution lines, it was easy to jack up the prices, because you were the only player in that industry with that brand name, without any due concern for the market or for the price or for the consumer. It was totally within your own regime that you did it. Speaking as an importer, competition breeds healthy, active and supportive industry that is there for the long term.These amendments to the Copyright Act will lead to cheaper prices for branded goods and greater availability of such goods. We live in a market area where quite often, if you are an east coast based supplier, delivery and service to the west coast becomes a second line issue. By opening up the industry to free market forces and competition, not piracy, we will have more suppliers able to distribute the product amongst a greater number of retailers, therefore satisfying the needs of the consumers.It has been understood that an instant removal of these packaging and labelling laws under copyright would place some hardship on firms which have entered into arrangements, in good faith, with their suppliers based overseas. So with that, the government has decided in its wisdom to allow an 18-month period for the introduction of these so that people can restructure their businesses to be able to survive. I heard the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) say that there was no country in the world where parallel imports had reduced prices and made things more competitive.Another industry is having to cope with restrictions on parallel imports. That industry is the amusement machine industry. To use an example of how copyright protection used as a restrictive trade barrier is affecting an industry, pre-1996, between 1991 and 1996, a group known as NAMOA, or the National Amusement Machine Operators Association, which is the sole national industry body, represented an industry composed of some 1,200 small businesses employing over 7,000 people. The turnover in that industry was $650 million a year. The people who are involved in this industry are in the main part those who operate amusement parlours, with things such as pinballs and video games—the systems that are found in shopping centres, hotels, clubs and just about everywhere we go. We all remember the movie Tommy with Roger Daltry, and its hit song Pinball Wizard. It is those sorts of machines we are talking about.In 1996 there was a decision by the Federal Court in the case of Galaxy Electronics Pty Ltd versus Sega Enterprises that they could use copyright as a restrictive instrument to stop the parallel imports of these machines. If we listened to the member for Canberra we would say, `That breeds a better industry.' The fact is that prior to 1996 the industry was stronger and a lot healthier and had a lot more players involved in it.We have four major suppliers of games in this industry in what are known as `must have' games. (Extension of time granted) Sega of Japan is a principal supplier of `must have' games, followed by Namco of Japan, Midway of the USA and possibly Konami of Japan. These games were able to be sourced across a broad range of suppliers, whether it be in Japan or America. To give you an example, prior to the restrictions of parallel imports these games used to be able to be purchased for around $20,000 throughout Japan and the US. Today, because we have restrictive imports through two set suppliers, the cost of these amusement machines is now $40,000 per unit. Not only has the cost gone up, but also the cost to young people playing these games has gone up. The industry which had a turnover of some $650 million per year, employing 7,000 people, is dramatically falling down in its ability to stay competitive and financially viable.After the 1991 proceedings, when parallel imports were allowed, Avel, which is a make-up of Village Nine Leisure and Leisure and Allied Industries, sought to have exclusive distribution outlets. These outlets were granted in the negotiations with Sega and other manufacturers. Now these people are the sole distributors of these games and are also amusement centre operators. So they have complete vertical integration. They squeeze out other operators so that they are no longer financially viable and able to compete in this industry.So for the member for Canberra to say that parallel imports make an industry not cheaper, not more viable, is absolutely incorrect. The reality is that prior to this federal government decision all of the players in the industry survived. The copyright amendments will go through very shortly. Perhaps these can be looked at as the next set of issues to be addressed under copyright amendments so that people can get on with the business of being in business and employing young people. I will draw my comments to a close, having received a note from the whip. I support this bill.15:51:006159Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I too support this copyright legislation. I recognise the difficulties involved in this for my colleagues the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) and the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey), but I think we need to recognise that we should take a step back, take a deep breath and have a look at how this thing stacks up as a matter of equity. In my electorate I have to tell citrus growers and pork producers that there is no protection, that this is the age of globalisation, that we cannot put up artificial barriers to products coming into this country. Their very livelihoods have to depend on their ability to cope in the market. How can we then turn around and tell six multinational companies that they can have a free lend of us, that they can charge young Australians anything from $3 to $7 a CD more?5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—More than what?KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLE—I will explain. When I was recently in Korea, I went to a reputable record shop and had a look at the CDs. They were selling at between $US10 and $US12, which is about $16 or $17. That is about $13 or $14 less than the young kids of Australia pay for the same thing. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable.What is more, this has been a very well orchestrated campaign. You will not get any of the big artists to come out and speak against this because their livelihoods are tied intrinsically to those six big companies. Those six big companies have not got a good track record with the young artists that they are now purportedly going to support. They do not pick those young artists up when they are at the nurturing stage—no way; they pick them up when they have made a bit of a name for themselves and when they are going to be of use to their labels. Those companies failed the members of the opposition when they were in government in promising to support young artists. When we came into government they had a plethora of excuses why they had not spent the money they promised on the young artists. Now I understand they are proposing to spend $270 million. I think on their track record we would have to take that as being pretty suspect.If we are going to have parallel imports, for every one of those stores that closes down because it cannot work within that system, there will be new and innovative stores which can import from anywhere in the world and establish a new system. I do not think you will see all these jobs at risk that the opposition have been talking about; I think quite the contrary. I think you will find that quite a few new chains, a few new stores and a lot of small businesses which were the playthings before of the multinationals will be able to derive their own product at a reasonable price from overseas.I am surprised that the ALP, which are supposed to defend community standards, young people and small business—or at least they profess to—would fall for this card trick of the big multinationals. If we had allowed the opposition to have their way, this would have been the first time in Australia's history that a government would have defended six multinationals to put up artificial trade barriers against product coming into this country. It is just an absolute nonsense. It pales into insignificance against the treatment of pork producers, people with citrus and the like.I think the minister has got this legislation right. I think that there have been too many self-serving people in this agenda. I recognise that there will be difficulties in some parts of the capital cities as the market readjusts, but I think on balance this is a good thing for competition and it is a good thing for young Australians. It allows them access to a much bigger catalogue which has been controlled by the multinationals up till now and, by and large, it will enhance the scope of choice in CDs in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: we had two bills—the Copyright Amendment Bill 1997 and the Copyright Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 . Was that the first one?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I have just put the question on the first bill.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I assumed you did. I was just clarifying that.Bills6160r3786160Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:(2) However, this Act commences immediately after the commencement of item 1 of Schedule 3 to the Copyright Amendment Act (No. 1) 1998 if that Act receives the Royal Assent on a day that is the same as, or later than, the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 10 to 30), omit the item, substitute:2 Subsection 10(1) Insert: non-infringing copy of a sound recording has the meaning given by section 10AA.2A After section 10 Insert:10AA Non-infringing copy of a sound recording Minimum requirements (1) A copy of a sound recording is a non-infringing copy only if it is made by or with the consent of: (a) the owner of the copyright or related right in the sound recording in the country (the copy country ) in which the copy was made; or (b) the owner of the copyright or related right in the sound recording in the country (the original recording country ) in which the sound recording was made, if the law of the copy country did not provide for copyright or a related right in sound recordings when the sound recording was made; or (c) the maker of the sound recording, if neither the law of the copy country nor the law of the original recording country (whether those countries are different or not) provided for copyright or a related right in sound recordings when the sound recording was made. Extra requirements for copies of recordings of works subject to Australian copyright(2) If the sound recording is of a work that is a literary, dramatic or musical work in which copyright subsists in Australia, the copy is a non-infringing copy only if: (a) copyright subsists in the work under the law of the copy country; and (b) the making of the copy does not infringe the copyright in the work under the law of the copy country; and (c) the copy country meets the requirements of subsection (3). To avoid doubt, the requirements of this subsection are additional to those of subsection (1). Requirements for copy country(3) The copy country mentioned in subsection (2) must: (a) be a party to the International Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works concluded at Berne on 9 September 1886 as revised from time to time; or (b) be a member of the World Trade Organization and have a law that provides consistently with the TRIPS Agreement for: (i) the ownership and duration of copyright in literary, dramatic and musical works; and (ii) the owner of the copyright in the work to have rights relating to the reproduction of the work. Australian copyright may result from Act or regulations(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) it does not matter whether the copyright in the work subsists in Australia as a result of this Act or as a result of the regulations made for the purposes of section 184.(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (after line 3), at the end of section 44D, add:(4) The copyright in a work a copy of which is on, or embodied in, a non-infringing accessory to a non-infringing copy of a sound recording is not infringed by importing the accessory with the copy.(5) Section 38 does not apply to a copy of a work, being a copy that is on, or embodied in, a non-infringing accessory to a non-infringing copy of a sound recording, if the importation of the accessory is not an infringement of copyright in the work.(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (lines 25 and 26), omit the item, substitute:7 Subsection 135(10)Omit "44A or 112A", substitute "44A, 44D, 112A or 112D".(5) Schedule 2, item 1, page 7 (line 9), omit "500", substitute "550".(6) Schedule 2, item 4, page 7 (line 27), omit "500", substitute "550".(7) Schedule 2, item 5, page 8 (line 4), omit "500", substitute "550".(8) Schedule 2, item 6, page 8 (line 12), omit "500", substitute "550".Motion (by Mr Williams) put:That the amendments be agreed to. 15:59:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)74Abbott, A. J. Andren, P. 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. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Draper, P.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. 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.Kelly, D. M. 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.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. 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. Worth, P. M.41Albanese, A. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Campbell, G.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. 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. Wilton, G. S.Zammit, P. J.Anderson, J. D. Andren, P. J.Cobb, M. R. Baldwin, P. J.Elson, K. S. Melham, D.Halverson, R. G. Willis, R.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Jull, D. F. Lee, M. J.Nugent, P. E. Dargavel, S. J.Reid, N. B. Jenkins, H. A.Taylor, W. L. Evans, M. J.Tuckey, C. W. Thomson, K. J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills6162r5276162Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 11 (line 1), omit subsection (3), substitute:(3) At a meeting, 3 members, one of whom is a member nominated by the Grains Council, is a quorum.(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 14 (line 12), omit "until 1 July 2004".(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 14 (lines 23 and 24), omit subsection (3C).(4) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 12), at the end of item 13, add:(7) Before the end of 2004, the Authority must conduct a review of the following matters, and give the Minister a report on the review:(a) the operation of subsection (1A) in relation to nominated company B;(b) the conduct of nominated company B in relation to:(i) consultations for the purposes of subsection (3A); and (ii) the granting or withholding of approvals for the purposes of subsection (3B).16:06:006162Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.These amendments to the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 which were passed by the Senate will remove the five-year limit on the export rights given to company B, the grower company pooling subsidiary, by the legislation. The amendments will also require the Wheat Export Authority to conduct a review and report to the minister by the end of 2004 on company B holding these export monopoly rights for wheat.Following consideration of the report by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee on the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , the government decided to remove the provisions in the bill which would have sunsetted the grower company's legislated export monopoly rights for wheat on 1 July 2004. The government also decided to require the Wheat Export Authority to review these arrangements. The legislated provisions for the grower company monopoly for a prescribed period had been put in place in recognition that the legislation would be reviewed under the national competition policy in 1999-2000. If that review found in favour of maintaining monopoly agreements for wheat, the five-year time frame was seen as giving the grower company time to establish its credentials and demonstrate sound arguments to put before parliament as to why the company should continue to hold its monopoly rights. However, the government recognises the importance of providing certainty to wheat growers that their company will retain the right to export wheat without consent from the Wheat Export Authority unless parliament decides otherwise.It has therefore been decided to amend the provisions in the bill to provide for no time limit to the grower company's right to export wheat. It has also been decided to require review of the performance of the pooling subsidiary company in regard to the use of the monopoly. These changes will have a minimal impact on the overall export monopoly arrangements as originally set out in the bill. They will not remove the government's commitment to national competition policy and the regular review of the legislation governing the wheat export arrangements.A further amendment to provide that a quorum for meetings of the Wheat Export Authority includes at least one of the two members nominated by the Grains Council of Australia was also passed by the Senate with the government's support. The bill already provides for three of the five members of the Wheat Export Authority to comprise a quorum for its meetings. The House previously accepted the government's amendments to the original bill to expand the membership of the Wheat Export Authority from three to five and to provide that it would include separate members from Western Australia, South Australia and the eastern states nominated by the Grains Council of Australia. The amendment by the Senate ensuring that the quorum for meetings of the authority includes at least one of the Grains Council nominees is consistent with the government's earlier proposal to expand the authority's membership. With the ability to hold meetings by telephone or other means, it was never envisaged that the authority would be prepared to make decisions without input from the Grains Council nominee members. I commend these amendments to the House.16:10:006163O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I signal that the opposition does not intend to oppose these amendments to the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . The bill has been through an exhaustive process in the other place and has delivered satisfaction to the industry on most of the issues that were under scrutiny. I would like to take the opportunity to just clear up for the record a couple of issues that have arisen along the way in this debate.First of all, I go to the Western Australian growers, in particular, who at all times believed that their proposed model for the grower owned structure was better for the future of the industry than the one being proposed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson). It should not go without note in this House that, when the minister commissioned a private sector recommendation on the structure that should be put in place for the grower corporate model, he got a private sector corporate structure. In a 300-page report which covered a range of private sector style models, one page was given to what is one of the most common corporate structures used in the world in agriculture—that is, the grower owned cooperative model. Yet the Western Australians—and they, as a group, are the largest wheat exporters in Australia—were trying to get the minister and the industry to listen to their view that the modern cooperative, as has been developed in the dairy industry and the pharmaceutical industry in Australia and as has been developed in Europe, was the better one to go for.The position of the Australian Labor Party was to say that we actually agree with you. I made it clear that I was prepared to give the industry further time to properly study this, which was why I proposed in the House last time that the bill be deferred and that the underwriting arrangements be continued to give the industry further time to consider this and other matters such as the tax matters. We tried in the Senate to do the same thing—to defer passage and guarantee the underwriting on that basis—but, in the end, it was unsuccessful.So the industry now proceeds with a model that every single person in the industry knows will be back in this House in five years time as the conflict of interests evolves between the owners of capital and the growers in the industry. We all know we are going to be back here in five years time helping to resolve the problem that has been put in place. We also know that the minister had to call in every single political chip he could find around the industry to finally get the support of the Democrats, to get them to the table with their vote for him in the Senate last week.Let us look at Labor's position and the government's position as a direct comparison. What is the single biggest issue for this industry? It is the right to retain their single desk, their consolidated marketing body. What did they have from the ALP? They had a letter written by me and cosigned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) guaranteeing the future of the single desk and saying that, while the majority of growers still wanted the single desk, it would stay that way. What did they have from the minister? They had a letter saying that that was subject to review by the National Competition Council. As a result, the member for Wide Bay (Mr Truss) has had to come into the chamber with amendments to guarantee the single desk, at least for a period of time until the Treasurer (Mr Costello) wants to bring some legislation back again, but it is subject to a review by the National Competition Council.I want to go to the heart of this point. I actually have a copy of a letter that the minister wrote to the grains section of the Western Australian Farmers Federation on this very topic. (Extension of time granted) On about 16 June, I was invited to address the general meeting of grain growers in Western Australia. The minister sent them a letter prior to my address demanding that, before I addressed the meeting, copies of our speeches in Hansard be made available. He said to them that the ALP spokesman—that is, I—demonstrated:. . . a total misunderstanding of the wheat industry and corporate matters, and proposing quite ridiculous ideas in relation to the future of our industry.That is about as smart as the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) describing Pauline Hanson as deranged. What he is actually saying is that all the people who support her views, support some of her views or are even thinking about her views, are also deranged. The minister was saying to those 400 Western Australian wheat growers who happen to have exactly the same view as me, `O'Keefe's views are ridiculous and, therefore, so are yours.'Further, he went on to say to them that, if they supported O'Keefe's views, if they stuck to their position believing a cooperative model would be better than a Peat Marwick corporate model with a conflict of interest between investors and growers, they would delay the process of the bill, the national competition policy review would run over the top of it and the single desk would be stuffed. So that is what wheat growers have in front of them—a guarantee from the Labor Party that the thing they hold most dear, the single desk, is there, countersigned by Kim Beazley, agreed to in our processes, and there has been no talk about it being subject to a national competition policy review. The letter continues:The National Competition Policy review will be held starting next year. Under the legislation already agreed to by all governments, it simply cannot be held any later than this.I just put a simple little point: competition policy is within the palm of the federal government. It runs the National Competition Council. It gives it the briefs. It gives it the references. If it decides it does not have to have a review of the single desk of the wheat industry, it does not have to have a single desk review.So here are these people telling the wheat industry, `O'Keefe's ideas are ridiculous. Your own ideas are ridiculous. If you keep on supporting this view, we'll have a national competition policy review that knocks you over.' Then the doozey of all doozeys, he says to the meeting in his letter:I wish to make it abundantly clear that neither the Government nor the GCA—here is the minister speaking for the Grains Council—supports the cooperative or composite model and I will not entertain any structural changes to the Grower Corporate Model.So here was the industry, still in the process of consultation, still working through their position, still having yet to reach a final decision, being told by the minister, `I will not entertain any changes to my model, my Peat Marwick private sector model that provides a direct long-term conflict of interest between the AMPs of the world who will buy the financial shares as farmers sell them and the wheat growers who will run the model.'It has not been a very flash performance. It is no wonder that, on the front page of today's Weekly Times in Victoria, even the Country Women's Association—the CWA—has announced it now intends to campaign politically on behalf of the bush because, whilst it is not endorsing Pauline Hanson, at least she is representing country people and at least, to use their words:Pauline has made rural people aware that their National Party is not giving them true representation in the corridors of power.That is the point we have reached.16:20:006165Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—The comments from the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) have been typical of his wide ranging views on these sorts of issues, which seem to be contradictory depending on where he happens to be at the particular time. When he was in Western Australia in June—and I think he referred to his address in Western Australia—he told the Western Australians that their position was the ALP position. But, of course, when he came over to the eastern states, his position was precisely the opposite, and he adopted an entirely different position.I appreciate that he has had some difficulties within the ALP on this issue because he came into this House and made all sorts of commitments but, by the time the legislation had got to the Senate, the Labor Party had changed its mind and voted precisely opposite to the way in which the member for Burke had indicated was the ALP policy position in place. It has been very difficult to follow the honourable member for Burke on this issue, and certainly wheat growers would have no confidence whatsoever that any commitments that the member for Burke may have made in Perth would have been honoured by the time he got to Melbourne, let alone after some election at some stage in the future when the ALP might actually be called upon to deliver on those commitments.A letter from the Labor Party guaranteeing that the single desk status would be maintained is hardly the sort of thing that wheat growers would be going out there planting their crops on. Bearing in mind Labor's record in delivering on election promises, one would not want to be relying on the word of the member for Burke or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) that something as important as the single desk status for the wheat industry would be maintained.This is the party that promised it would never sell the Commonwealth Bank, never sell Qantas—the party that told us about the l-a-w tax cuts. Now they are asking the wheat growers to merely rely on a letter of assurance signed by the member for Burke and the Leader of the Opposition. They would obviously have to ask the very basic question about what mood the member for Burke was in that day. Was he talking to the Western Australia growers or was he talking to the eastern state growers? His policy obviously changed by the day.Fortunately, the Senate has had the good sense to pass this legislation in spite of the machinations of the Labor Party. The legislation is good news for the wheat farmers of Australia. It delivers on the coalition government's commitment to the single desk. The legislation, I might add, is being overwhelmingly supported by the wheat growers in Australia in all states. I recognise that there have been some growers in Western Australia who have had alternative ideas, but this legislation clearly has the support of the industry. I believe it also deserves the support of the House. I certainly commend it to all honourable members.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6165r4136165Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 21), before item 40, insert:39A After section 38BA Insert:38BB Application by licensee for lease (1) If: (a) a licence is in force under paragraph 53(1)(c) or subsection 53(2) in respect of a block or blocks; and (b) no operations for the recovery of petroleum are being carried on under the licence in respect of an area (the unused area ): (i) that consists of, or consists of part of, the block or blocks; and (ii) in which petroleum has been found to exist; the licensee may, within the application period, apply to the Designated Authority for the grant by the Joint Authority of a lease in respect of the unused area. (2) An application under subsection (1): (a) is to be in accordance with an approved form; and (b) is to be made in an approved manner; and (c) is to be accompanied by particulars of: (i) the proposals of the applicant for work and expenditure in respect of the unused area; and (ii) the commercial viability of the recovery of petroleum from the unused area at the time of the application, and particulars of the possible future commercial viability of the recovery of petroleum from that area; and (d) may set out any other matters that the applicant wishes to be considered; and (e) is to be accompanied by the prescribed fee. (3) The Designated Authority may, at any time, by written notice served on the applicant, require the applicant to give, within the period stated in the notice, further written information in connection with the application. (4) The application period in respect of an application under this section by a licensee is the period of 5 years that began on: (a) the day on which the licence was granted; or (b) if any operations for the recovery of petroleum have been carried on under the licence in respect of the unused area—the last day on which any such operations were so carried on.38BC Grant or refusal of lease in relation to application by licensee (1) If: (a) an application has been made under section 38BB; and (b) the applicant has given any further information as and when required by the Designated Authority under subsection 38BB(3); and (c) the Joint Authority is satisfied that recovery of petroleum from the unused area: (i) is not, at the time of the application, commercially viable; and (ii) is likely to become commercially viable within the period of 15 years after that time; the Joint Authority must, by written notice served on the applicant, inform the applicant that it is prepared to grant to the applicant a lease in respect of the unused area. (2) If an application has been made under section 38BB and: (a) the applicant has not given further information as and when required by the Designated Authority under subsection 38BB(3); or (b) the Joint Authority is not satisfied as to the matters referred to in paragraph (1)(c) in relation to the unused area; the Joint Authority must, by written notice served on the applicant, refuse to grant a lease to the applicant. (3) A notice under subsection (1) must contain: (a) a summary of the conditions subject to which the lease is to be granted; and (b) a statement to the effect that the application will lapse if the applicant does not make a request under subsection (4) in respect of the grant of the lease. (4) An applicant on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) may, within one month after the date on which the notice was served, or within such further period, not exceeding one month, as the Designated Authority, on written application made to the Designated Authority before the end of the first-mentioned period of one month, allows, request the Joint Authority in writing to grant the lease to the applicant. (5) If an applicant on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) has made a request under subsection (4) within the period applicable under subsection (4), the Joint Authority must grant to the applicant a retention lease in respect of the unused area. (6) If an applicant on whom a notice has been served under subsection (1) has not made a request under subsection (4) within the period applicable under subsection (4), the application lapses at the end of that period. (7) On the day on which a lease granted under this section in respect of an unused area comes into force, the licence in respect of the block or blocks of which the area consists or in which the area is included ceases to be in force in respect of the area.38BD Application of sections 38BB and 38BC where licence is transferred If: (a) after an application has been made under subsection 38BB(1) in relation to an area consisting of or included in a block or blocks in respect of which a licence is in force; and (b) before a decision has been made by the Joint Authority under subsection 38BC(1) or (2) in relation to the application; a transfer of the licence is registered under section 78, sections 38BB and 38BC have effect, after the time of the transfer, as if any reference in those sections to the applicant were a reference to the transferee.39B Section 53 After "licence" (first occurring), insert "granted before the commencement of subsection (2)".39C Paragraph 53(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (c) in the case of a licence granted by way of the second renewal of a licence—indefinitely.39D At the end of section 53 Add: (2) Subject to this Part, a licence granted after the commencement of this subsection remains in force indefinitely.39E After section 53 Insert:53A Termination of licence if no operations for 5 years (1) If no operations for the recovery of petroleum under a licence referred to in paragraph 53(1)(c) or subsection 53(2) have been carried on for a continuous period of at least 5 years, the Joint Authority may, by written notice served on the licensee, inform the licensee that the Joint Authority proposes to terminate the licence after the end of one month after the notice is served. (2) At any time after the end of one month after the notice referred to in subsection (1) is served on the licensee, the Joint Authority may, by written notice served on the licensee, terminate the licence. (3) In working out for the purposes of subsection (1) the duration of the period in which no operations for the recovery of petroleum were carried on under a licence, any period in which no such operations were carried on because of circumstances beyond the licensee's control is to be disregarded.39F Subsection 54(1) After "licensee", insert "under a licence to which paragraph 53(1)(a) or (b) applies".39G Paragraph 55(1)(c) and (d) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (c) must if: (i) the application is in respect of the first renewal of the licence; or (ii) the application is in respect of a renewal of the licence other than the first renewal and operations for the recovery of petroleum have been carried on in the licence area within 5 years before the application for the renewal was made; or (d) may in any other case;39H Compensation—constitutional safety-net (1) If: (a) apart from this item, the operation of any of items 39A to 39G would result in the acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms; and (b) the acquisition would be invalid because of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution; the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation of a reasonable amount to the person in respect of the acquisition. (2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the Court determines. (3) In this section: acquisition of property has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. just terms has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi)of the Constitution. 16:24:006168Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The government amendment to the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 , which covered a range of issues, relates to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. This amendment provides greater certainty for companies planning major offshore liquefied natural gas projects.The House would be aware that LNG gas supply contracts are negotiated for very long terms. There are several multibillion dollar LNG export projects under consideration at the moment. The amendment will enact a new production licence system which will guarantee the security of the licences for the full term of these contracts. The amendment replaces the existing 21-year licence period with an indefinite period, subject to the qualification that production areas may revert to the Commonwealth if production ceases for five years.The elimination of periodic licence renewals is likely to result in reduced administrative costs for both government and industry. The Commonwealth will continue to collect the same level of annual fees—$18,000 per block—under the new system. The amendment is supported by the states, the Northern Territory and the petroleum industry. I commend the amendment to the House.16:24:006168O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—We are, again, quite comfortable with the final resolution of this legislation in the Senate, but I want to repeat one of the key points I made in the debate on this bill in the earlier stages in this House; that is, I continue to regard with disbelief the decision to cut the funding of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation at the very time that we are under such pressure around the coast of Australia on management of our fisheries and under pressure in inland Australia on our waterways and on the health of our rivers.This whole conservation and fisheries sustainable development argument just begs for more and more government commitment to research, but, by a sleight of hand, the government has actually removed over $3½ million from the FRDC via this process. I do not think it has heard the last of this yet. We will certainly continue to press for a better priority for that kind of funding in future. The bill has now been through the Senate and, as far as we are concerned, the amendments that have been made are not controversial. But I again ask the government to reconsider its decision to take that money out of fisheries research and development.16:28:006168Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I want to make some comments on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act amendments which the minister has drawn to the attention of the House. I have had the opportunity for little more than cursory consultation with the relevant industry associations and individual members of the industry itself. On the basis of my consultation, it is fair and true to say that industry supports the measures contained in the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 and supports its passage at this time.The urgency suggested by the government in respect of these matters is said to be based on proposed new projects and possible expansion of the existing project which forms Australia's liquefied natural gas industry, namely, the North-West Shelf. I have made it clear that we support that expansion. From our national point of view, it is regrettable that these expansions or new projects now seem further away as a result of the Asian economic difficulties. On this basis, we would have thought this was precisely an area where detailed consultation with the opposition could and should have occurred in the run-up to the introduction of these amendments. It is a matter of regret that this has not occurred.Frankly, given the current Asian economic climate, the argument as to urgency is tenuous. If this amendment is passed today, for instance, will the Japanese wish to offer the piece of paper that they could not offer at LNG 12 recently in respect of the North-West Shelf? Will the Koreans produce a piece of paper for the Gorgon project? We think not. On the same basis, if the amendment is not passed this week or next, will the Japanese or the Koreans say that the failure to pass was the fatal straw that broke the expansion or the new project's back? Again, we think not. It is, however, fair to say that this is one of the issues which does fall for relevant consideration by customers in the context of these LNG expansions or new projects.There is an issue here which we are happy to address at this point in time: the opposition supports the notion or the principle that there should be secure title over gas resources to support long-term LNG contracts. We have no difficulty in the principle of a LNG supplier's production licence remaining in force at the very least until the expiry of the LNG contract. This principle is sensible, is important to the industry in the long term and is one which we support.Whether the detail of the amendment effects that in the best way or whether there are alternate ways of achieving that are questions that would have been helped by the presence of some sensible consultation, to which I have already referred. For example, some may have legitimate reservations about the notion of an indefinite production licence period, particularly given that the amendments apply across the board and not just in respect of LNG projects. For example, what domestic implications, if any, does this have for the new era of competitive gas arrangements, particularly given that the parliament has just passed the gas access third party arrangements?There may be, for example, a structure available where the production licence period is a definite period but longer than the longest long-term LNG contract in that production area. It is, of course, acknowledged that sections 105 and 106 of the act which relate to the cancellation of a licence remain in place. These do give protection if the conditions of production are not met.In summary, we support the expansion of Australia's LNG industry, we support the principle that these amendments reflect and, in the context of limited consultation, we support the passage of these amendments.There is one other aspect of the bill which I draw to the House's attention. In the course of debate in this House earlier, I drew attention to the law of the sea implications for the proposed sections of the bill which deal with the maritime delimitation treaty with Indonesia of 1997 and I asked the Commonwealth to provide legal advice in respect of these matters. The minister has paid me the courtesy of doing that. On the basis of the Commonwealth's legal advice, I am now persuaded that seismic research carried out in pursuance to a permit under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act for petroleum exploration and exploitation purposes is not subject to the marine scientific research provisions of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or the 1997 treaty and, as a consequence, the results of seismic exploration for seabed resources carried out pursuant to a permit granted under the PSL act in areas of overlapping jurisdictions would not be required to be handed over to Indonesia. That meets the point I raised earlier in the House and we support the amendments that the minister has outlined.16:32:006169Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I thank honourable members for their contribution. Obviously, little new was raised. One would expect that all these issues have been adequately addressed. I note that the honourable member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) is satisfied with the legal opinion that he received following the legitimate concerns he raised in the debate when this bill was before this chamber previously.The honourable member also raised questions about whether this matter was genuinely urgent, given the Asian economic crisis at the present time. The government considers that the matter is still urgent. LNG is a very long-term business, and neither the companies that are selling the product nor their buyers think in terms of the present economic climate. They are looking 40 years ahead. The companies are talking with potential long-term customers now. They are in hard commercial negotiations and I am advised that these amendments will assist the early resolution of the negotiations. If we delayed these matters until August, then the Senate may well not have considered them until into next year and opportunities could well be lost to other countries; we may have lost, particularly, export opportunities to Malaysian and Indo nesian suppliers. So I thank the opposition for their willingness to support these proposals in that light.Finally, I want to comment briefly on the question of fisheries research. The honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) made comments about the reduction in the funding for the Fisheries and Research Development Corporation. That has only become necessary because the previous government so hopelessly mismanaged the south-east fisheries that it was necessary to provide substantial financial resources to recover from that incompetence. The amount of money provided is to be amortised, so the effective loss in each year will be to the tune of $600,000. If the fishing industry or the honourable member for Burke has complaints in relation to that matter, I suggest they take it up with the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) who has just entered the chamber because it was his mismanagement that required the expenditure of such large sums of money to rectify the problem. Nonetheless, I thank the opposition for their support for these amendments and commend them to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6170r5006170Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 13), at the end of subsection 65AE(2), add ", and may include examples (in relation to particular classes of goods or otherwise) of changes which are fundamental changes for the purposes of subsection (1)".(2) Schedule 2, item 3, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), omit the item.(3) Schedule 2, item 5, page 11 (lines 26 to 29), omit the item.(4) Page 11 (after line 29), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 3—Amendment of the Trade Practices Act 1974 relating to section 51 authorisation1 At the end of Part XII Add:173 Authorisation for the purposes of subsection 51(1) (1) In deciding whether a person (including a corporation) has contravened section 50 of this Act, the vesting of ownership of primary products in the person by legislation is to be taken, for the purposes of subparagraph 51(1)(a)(i), to be specified in, and specifically authorised by, this section. (2) In this section: primary products means: (a) agricultural or horticultural produce, including produce that has been subjected to a manufacturing process; or (b) crops, whether on or attached to the land or not; or (c) animals (whether dead or alive); or (d) the bodily produce (including natural increase) of animals. Note: An example of agricultural produce that has been subjected to a manufacturing process is sugar cane that has been transformed into raw sugar.16:35:006170Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.These amendments of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 come to us from the Senate and the government accepts the amendment by the Senate to Schedule 1 of the bill. The amendment extends the regulation-making power available to the minister to provide clarity in specific cases about the application of the substantial transformation test. The Senate has already agreed to a government amendment addressing a potential problem with the application of section 50 of the act to vesting arrangements for primary products.The government appreciates the concerns raised by the Queensland industry at reports that the acquisition powers of the Queensland Sugar Corporation may be contrary to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. The government has always been committed to the retention of vesting arrangements in Queensland, which was one of the recommendations emanating from the recent sugar industry review. This amendment to the Trade Practices Act, which we have expedited, should remove any doubts as to the validity of the operations of the Queensland Sugar Corporation and secure the future of approximately $2.8 billion in forward sugar contracts which are dependent on the vesting of sugar.The government is disappointed that the Senate has rejected the amendments which would have given the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to take representative actions on behalf of small businesses and consumers affected by breaches of part IV of the Trade Practices Act. These amendments were announced by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Peter Reith, in the small business package `New deal: fair deal' last year. They address a major problem faced by small business and consumers: their inability to afford legal action against other, better resourced parties. They do not create new grounds for action, only an avenue for injured parties to be assisted by the commission. The ALP opposed these amendments in order to protect the Maritime Union of Australia—Mr Crean interjecting—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSS—Well, those are the words that you used in this debate in the House of Representatives. Their position ignores that part IV is the major Commonwealth legislation protecting small business and consumers from anti-competitive conduct such as price fixing, exclusive dealing and misuse of market power. By voting against these amendments, the ALP is backflipping. In government, the ALP supported the same reforms.In its response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report Compliance with the Trade Practices Act, the previous government agreed that the ACCC should have the power to take representative actions for all provisions of the act, including part IV. The government accepts that the Senate has rejected these amendments and will present new legislation soon in an effort to provide small business and consumers with relief in this area. I commend the amendments to the House.16:38:006171Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Are you accepting that the amendments be agreed to?GT4TRUSSMr Truss—We want the bill. We will accept it and bring the other bits up later.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I was not aware that that was the position the government was adopting, but I think it is important that the government has seen the light. We indicated when this matter was before the House on the last occasion that, were the government to drop the components of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 that referred to the ACCC retrospectively being given power for the class actions, we would have effectively allowed the bill to go through then. We do agree that the product labelling issue is an important one to have resolved. We do not believe that what the government has done on product labelling resolves it properly. We have said that we will be monitoring the effect of their new legislation, and if we see the need to change it on coming to office, we will do so.We were very concerned that this worthy cause was being held to ransom by the other propositions, which have been rejected by the Senate, because of the obsession of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) to get the MUA. We did not seek to delay the proposals associated with product labelling. Indeed, we indicated to the government that if they were prepared to bring it on we would in a bipartisan way try to reach agreement. We had a number of discussions with the minister and his office about ways in which we could expedite it. But the truth of the matter is that at the last minute those worthy objectives were hijacked by the minister for workplace relations for his own purposes—they were the provisions of the bill which had absolutely nothing to do with product labelling or origin labelling.Effectively, these were provisions that allowed the ACCC to take retrospective action on matters of alleged contribution of part IV restrictive trade practices. The real agenda behind that was revealed by the Chairman of the ACCC, Professor Alan Fels, on the Business Sunday program some weeks ago. On that program he lamented that he did not have the power to prosecute the Maritime Union of Australia. He said, `It was worth thinking about as an extra element in law.' What a coincidence! He goes on the Business Sunday program and then we find a provision in the legislation that was not even drawn attention to by the minister when he was briefing us in my office. This was a provision, Minister, you did not draw to our attention, and it was only something that we picked up as we went through the explanatory memorandum.This was tried to be introduced by deceit and by an obsession, as I say, that the minister for workplace relations had to try to find yet another avenue to go after the MUA. He dressed it up, of course, in terms of saying that it was about giving class action opportunity to the ACCC on behalf of small businesses to take action, but that was just a nonsense. What he was really doing was giving retrospective power to the ACCC to take actions on behalf of small businesses that otherwise were not prepared take action. In other words, the ACCC, which had pursued something of the same obsessive zeal as the minister for workplace relations, was being given not just a new power but an ability to apply it retrospectively.As I say, what a coincidence! Professor Fels goes on the TV and then within the space of a couple of days we have a piece of legislation before us that sneaks through the very power that he was claiming was needed. (Extension of time granted) Just like the coincidence of the bill being rushed into the parliament straight after the stevedoring levy bill. Remember the bill that was brought into the House the next day after the midnight sitting of cabinet, the bill that supported the capacity of Patrick's to sack its entire work force through some corporate scam? This was legislation the government was able to get up and introduce within the space of 10 hours and then, immediately after it, bring in this piece of legislation containing the retrospective power. So it is for that reason that not only we opposed it then but we opposed it in the Senate. We will continue to oppose items 3 and 5 of schedule 2 of the bill because they are clearly designed in a sneaky manner to give retrospective powers to the ACCC to pursue action against the MUA.It was the minister's obsession to get the MUA. That is why this particular provision was introduced into the bill. Australia would have had the certainty in labelling laws that every group had called for well before now if it had not been for this decision. The government could have split off the MUA provisions from the bill, which is effectively the position it is now adopting. But by not doing it the minister for workplace relations was effectively holding Australian businesses and consumers to ransom.He was holding to ransom Australian manufacturers who are doing the right thing by putting as much Australian content as possible into their product. That was what this so-called minister for small businesses and encouraging small businesses was effectively about—putting off the sort of certainty they were seeking. Why? Because he wanted to get the MUA at any cost. Using the stealth of night, the balaclavas, the rottweilers and the moving in on the waterfront backed by legislation, sneaky legislation—this is the minister for workplace relations, the discredited Peter Reith. All the time you were introducing legislation to penalise unions pursuing legitimate activity, as the courts of this land have found.What we have proposed here—there is an indication that, whilst the government accepts that it has been knocked over at this point, it intends to raise it in the future—is a new power for the ACCC to go after unions on the basis of what the minister keeps referring to as the monopoly unionism that is stopping competition on the waterfront. Why weren't they asking the ACCC to remove anti-competitive practices in the ports and on the wharves not associated with unions? What about the monopoly controlled by the port authorities? What about the monopoly control that saw pressure put on to keep a new operator out of the port of Melbourne? This was the action by Patrick's against the Victorian government to stop a new entrant coming into the waterfront. Where was the ACCC on that? Where was the ACCC wor ried about new competition on the waterfront? This was an ACCC seeking new powers to retrospectively pursue a union but not using its existing powers to go after action by a company to keep out a new entrant.It is not only the monopoly of the ports; it is the duopoly of the stevedores and the cartel arrangements of the shipping companies. If this government was serious about getting competition on the waterfront, they would be pursuing those aspects of the equation, not just going after the union. But what have we seen? A single-handed approach, an obsession by the minister for workplace relations. That is essentially what this amendment is about. He wants the ACCC to take it on their behalf and he wants Professor Fels to continue to do his bidding. The trouble is that Professor Fels's action has now got the government in a bit of a bind. To settle the dispute on the waterfront requires the dropping of all actions, but the dog that has been unleashed in the ACCC will not easily come back on the leash. That is why we do not have a settlement in this matter at the moment.The opposition is pleased that the government is finally seeing reason. It has taken it right to the eleventh hour, the minute before midnight, in its persistence with this. But we will be opposing it in future because it is bad law and it is wrongly placed in this bill. (Time expired)16:49:006173Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 was debated in the House debate was curtailed. Many of us who had a contribution to make were denied the opportunity. That often happens in this place and an excuse is made in the Senate, but it is not much of an excuse. I have covered that ground on previous occasions. I do not intend to go over it at length tonight.A survey conducted by the Tavener Research Company in May 1995 found that 79 per cent of consumers believed that buying Australian made products helps the economy and balance of trade and 95 per cent of consumers believed that buying Australian made products in preference to imports creates jobs for Australians. Whether those figures reflect the economic truth is probably immaterial. The fact is that that is the perception as indicated by the results of the survey. The accuracy of country of origin statements on products is very important. I am not sure these amendments address some of the concerns that people might have, although I am generally supportive of what the government is trying to do.A working group in 1992-93 sent a questionnaire to about 80 industry and community groups and received 43 responses. In its report, the working group concluded that, from an examination of the submissions made to the group, it was clear that no scheme would completely satisfy all the interests of suppliers, consumers and the government. However, the option preferred by the working group was to limit the terms describing Australian origin to `Made in Australia', `Product of Australia' or `Produce of Australia'. It is important to remember that in discussing these amendments.To qualify for those descriptions, the working group recommended that the goods must have acquired their essential character in Australia and not less than 85 per cent of the cost of the goods must have been incurred in Australia. Under the bill, however, producers and manufacturers selling goods in Australia will be able to claim that a product was `Made in Australia' if it was substantially transformed in Australia and if what the minister calls `the majority of the cost of production' was incurred in Australia. The bill before amendment provides that goods are substantially transformed in Australia if they undergo a change in this country to how they look, operate or in their purpose. Examples of such transformations include the sewing of cloth into a shirt or the moulding of sheet metal into a car panel.The meaning of `substantially transformed' appears in the legislation to be reasonably clear. But an examination of the clause in the bill relating to costs of production shows that the government's idea of what it understands by the majority of the cost of producing or manufacturing something is, interestingly, `50 per cent or more of the cost'. That may or may not accord with what you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or I or other Australians as consumers understand by the expression `Made in Australia'.That gets to the crux of the problem. That is the matter which the government is trying to address, with some degree of success. Perhaps the 85 per cent threshold recommended in 1993 by the working group to which I have referred would be more acceptable. Furthermore, while it is unlikely to be difficult for manufacturers and producers to allocate costs of materials according to their source, I anticipate that industry will have some difficulty in allocating the costs of labour and overheads in order to calculate the costs of production of an item. I do not think the amendments before us address that issue, and perhaps they should. (Extension of time granted)The issue of distributing costs of production between Australia and overseas arose in 1994 in the case of Trade Practices Commission v. QDSV Holdings Pty Ltd, who were then trading as Bush Friends Australia. Mr Justice Davies pointed out that there was considerable difficulty in comparing the labour costs of manufacturing the product in that case because wages in China were so much lower than wages in Australia. Accordingly, he held that a mere comparison of cost figures did not accurately indicate the extent of work done in one country as against that carried out in another. The cost comparison exercise is, and will be, complicated for business, particularly small business, and adds yet more red tape and cost of compliance to the already unacceptable burden.`Product of Australia' and `Produce of Australia' claims will be reserved for goods that are 100 per cent Australian, or as near to it as possible. `Product of' descriptions will be of particular value to primary producers though. To be given this label, goods must be created in Australia from `all or virtually all' domestic inputs or ingredients and have `all or virtually all' of the manufacturing processes undertaken here.The bill includes a regulation-making power to ensure that the integrity of the new origin labelling legislation scheme is maintained. In addition, the bill in its original version provides for the government to recognise indus try based logos which set origin standards, provided that the standards are at least as high as those provided in this legislation. These proposed logos can provide important marketing advantages with respect to those consumers who are keen to buy Australian products—and may there be many of them.In addition, though, the Commonwealth government has announced that it will mount a public education campaign to support the primary purpose of this bill—and I expect we will see that with the passage of this bill, assuming that it goes ahead as amended. The cost of that campaign is estimated at $1.35 million over a couple of years.Had I had the opportunity in the second reading debate—which opportunity was denied me by the government—I would have commented earlier on the government's proposal to authorise the use of the phrase `Made in Australia' to include products which have as much as 50 per cent of the cost of production incurred overseas. The government's idea of an Australian made product conflicts with the survey evidence that shows a large majority of Australians believe that `Made in Australia' means manufactured here largely from Australian components and ingredients and by Australians.The bill in its unamended form would have allowed a manufacturer to have labelled his or her goods `Made in Australia' where the goods were substantially transformed in Australia and half their cost of production was incurred in Australia, even where they were incorporating largely imported components or ingredients. According to former Senator Sid Spindler in his 1994 dissenting report in the Senate committee inquiry into the McHugh bill, as it then was under the previous Labor administration, a survey conducted by Quadrant Research Services found that 47 per cent of respondents believed that `Made in Australia' meant 100 per cent Australian, and 74 per cent believed that it should mean just that.That would suggest to me, and others I am sure, that only a small minority of Australians would understand that the label `Made in Australia' could be used on goods made from imported inputs, and that even fewer would accept that definition. It appears that the minister is well and truly aware of that view; indeed, he endorsed it. He spoke about it on 31 January 1995, during debate on the second reading of Labor's McHugh bill. At that time, the honourable member for Wide Bay said, amongst other things, that the coalition in government:. . . will be proposing amendments to the legislation to make it more in keeping with the wishes of the Australian public . . .(Extension of time granted) Later in those remarks, he went on to say:. . . the term `Made in Australia' . . . will be able to be used on goods which acquired their essential character or qualities in Australia but could include imported ingredients. This flies in the face of public opinion and is against the will of consumer organisations, the trade union movement, the rural sector and much of industry.I am still quoting from remarks the minister made in his capacity as the member for Wide Bay when in opposition. He went on:It seems that only the [then] Minister for Consumer Affairs and perhaps one or two of her colleagues are left thinking that the words `Made in Australia' should be allowed to be used on goods with foreign ingredients.Also, Ausbuy, the lobby group representing Australian owned companies, has said it will continue to campaign for the use of the legislated Australian origin labels to be restricted to Australian owned companies. Ausbuy also points out that the amendments in the bill do not cover services. Ausbuy advocated the extension of the labels to services provided by television stations, telecommunications companies and Internet service providers.If there is to be a voluntary country of origin labelling regime to assist the marketing of local products in Australia, the scheme must be clear and it must be unambiguous. If the expressions the scheme prescribes do not remove the existing confusion from consumers' minds, it will be a waste of time and it will be a waste of taxpayers' money. So I enjoin the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) to think about the wisdom of allowing a manufacturer to label an item `Made in Australia' when one-half of the cost of making the product was incurred outside Australia.There is much more I would have liked to have had the opportunity to say. Indeed, I am tempted to attempt to take that opportunity. But I do know the government is anxious to get its business through and I will do it the courtesy that it was not prepared to extend to me during the second reading debate. I will not go on at length, but that is not to say that I admire the way it conducts business in this House sometimes. It is no better or worse than its Labor predecessor in that regard. Just by being able to sit the parliament a little bit longer, most of the needs of people who represent constituents in this chamber could be satisfied and they could be given the opportunity to speak at the appropriate occasion.I repeat that there is a great deal more I would have liked to have said. I regret that the government denied me the opportunity when it was there and at the proper time in the debate before the legislation went to the Senate. As time goes by I have come to understand but not to accept that the House of Representatives has become less and less a legislative chamber under successive administrations. That should be something of importance to the Australian people. Indeed, it may be one of the small elements that has contributed to the rise of splinter parties in this country. Perhaps if we were a little bit genuine in our attitude towards the parliamentary process and parliamentary representation in the House of Representatives, those people would not have got the guernsey they have now got. It is an element because, despite what might have been said to be the best intentions of this government when it came into office, the executive still rides roughshod over the House of Representatives.17:03:006175Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean) for his comments. I also thank the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) for his comments, some of which were a little unkind, I felt. Nonetheless, he is noted for carefully examining legislation and being forthright in his views. This moment gives me a great deal of personal pleasure as we at last see country of origin labelling legislation passing this House after the many, many years that this subject has been a matter of community concern. At last the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 is about to go through the House of Representatives. The confusion and the suspicion about country of origin labelling will soon be a thing of the past.This legislation will deliver, in very simple terms, honesty and integrity in labelling. I think that is something that both industry and consumers have been demanding now for quite some time. As the honourable member for Curtin said, certainly in my backbench days in opposition and when this matter was before the parliament as a result of legislation that the previous government introduced, I have taken a very keen interest in this matter over many years. I am pleased to see that at last we will have some clarity and some integrity in the system that has caused a great deal of concern amongst consumers over recent times. I appreciate that conflicting court decisions have made the circumstances somewhat more confused than they have ever been and therefore the need for this legislation is the more pressing. But, at last, it is before the parliament and I am very pleased that it is going to receive bipartisan support in this place.I would like to comment briefly on a couple of the matters raised by the honourable member for Curtin. He referred at some length to a Quadrant survey, from which he quoted selectively. That was a survey of consumers in relation to food products. The government has always acknowledged that there are special circumstances which apply to the labelling of food and special issues that need to be addressed. We have indicated to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority that, as matter of urgency, it ought to address those issues.The amendments to the Trade Practices Act, which the parliament is about to vote on, will provide broad criteria which must be adhered to by all in Australian industry, whether that be manufacturing or the food sector. But we acknowledge that there are some special additional rules which may be required in the food sector and we want ANZFA to deal with those matters urgently.It will also be important for the advertising campaign to which the government is committed to make it clear in that campaign to consumers and to manufacturers the circumstances under which they can use the description `Produce of Australia' and the occasions when `Made in Australia' is a more appropriate description. But the clear message to Australian consumers will be that if they want to buy something that is 100 per cent Australian and is truly Australian, then they should buy a product called `Product of Australia'. Something described as `Product of Australia' or `Produce of Australia' will be truly Australian. If they buy something with the description `Made in Australia' it will be predominantly Australian—at least 50 per cent of the cost of production will be incurred here—and it will be substantially transformed in this country, but it is likely to have some imported ingredients.Those two simple, clear descriptions will be reinforced through an advertising campaign and I hope that, in time, consumers everywhere will be confident that, when these descriptions are used on products, they know what they are buying. They will know that something described as Product of Australia is indeed truly Australian. I think that will be an important marketing advantage, particularly for Australian primary producers and food producers. Nothing with Canadian pork in it will be able to be called Product of Australia. Nothing with Brazilian concentrate in it will be able to be called Product of Australia. The clear message to the consumers of Australia is that, if they want something that is truly Australian, they can buy something that is called Product of Australia or Produce of Australia, and that is guaranteed through this legislation.Finally, I will comment briefly on the matters raised by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Crean). I reject categorically any suggestion that the government was involved in some kind of conspiracy in relation to this legislation. The government had absolutely no secret agenda. This legislation was not introduced as part of any kind of sleazy campaign to enable the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take action against the MUA. (Extension of time granted)This legislation was introduced because the government wanted to provide the circumstances where the ACCC could provide a helping hand for small business on occasions when it was facing a conflict with big business. There have been all sorts of difficulties over the years when, because of its sheer power and strength, big business has been able to exercise that power in a way that disadvantages small business. Small business frequently does not have the resources to be able to take on big business in courts or tribunals to seek any kind of redress in those circumstances. The intent of this legislation was to enable the ACCC to provide a helping hand in those circumstances. Frankly, I think that those amendments proposed as a part of this bill would have provided a great advantage to small business. They were certainly recommended by a series of reports into small business matters. They were announced as part of the government's response to the New deal: fair deal report, and I think those sorts of measures would have been warmly welcomed by small business.Because the other matters in this bill are so important to the government, such as country of origin labelling and the need to protect the operations of the Queensland Sugar Corporation, we have reluctantly agreed to accept the Senate amendments. But the matter will not rest here. The government is determined to reintroduce these matters to provide small business with the protection they have sought. I might add that the ALP indicated a willingness to support these matters when they were in government, and even at the time of the response to the `New deal: fair deal' legislation, so I think there was an indication that that kind of legislation would be supported. I believe it is good for small business, it is good for Australia and, in those circumstances, it should be recommitted to the parliament at some time in the future. That is certainly the government's intention.This is historic legislation in that it will at last deliver to Australians an honest labelling system that delivers integrity to country of origin labelling claims that will be welcomed by small business and industry but, most particularly, by consumers, who will be able to buy goods with the confidence that something labelled Product of Australia is indeed truly Australian and goods labelled Made in Australia are predominantly Australian. That will provide a marketing advantage for Australian industry and the confidence consumers need that they can buy products that come from Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6177r3976177Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 7 (after line 13), after section 76, insert:76A Notification of extension to the Secretary, Health and Family Services In respect of each application for an extension approved by the Commissioner under section 76 in a financial year, the patent holder must lodge with the Secretary of the Department, before the end of the following financial year, a return setting out the following information: (a) details of the amount and origin of any Commonwealth funds spent in the research and development of the drug which was the subject of the application; and (b) the name of any body: (i) with which the applicant has a contractual agreement; and (ii) which is in receipt of Commonwealth funds; and (c) the total amount spent on each type of research and development, including pre-clinical research and clinical trials, in respect of the drug which was the subject of the application.17:12:006177Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1998 was passed in the other place with one relatively minor amendment. This amendment does not alter the substance of the bill or modify the government's intentions in putting the bill to the House. The bill has returned to the House for consideration of just that amendment.The amendment was moved by the Democrats and supported by the government and the opposition in the Senate. The amendment means that companies which apply for an extension will be required to file a report detailing any Commonwealth funds spent on research and development on the product under patent by the applicant company or anybody contractually bound to the applicant company. This report must also detail the research and development costs incurred by the company for the drug in question.Honourable members will recall that this bill fulfils the government's commitments in three areas. It extends the patent term for pharmaceuticals in recognition of the long development time and regulatory requirements involved in commercialising a new drug. This includes springboarding provisions to allow manufacturers of generic drugs to undertake activities to meet premarketing regulatory requirements once an extension is granted on a patent. The bill changes the regulatory arrangements for the professions of patent and trademark attorneys and removes restrictions on Patent Office employees providing advice to clients.The amendment will provide data that will be useful to the government in assessing the benefits and costs of extending patent life. While the amendment may add some compliance cost for firms, the pharmaceutical industry supported the amendment on the basis that it assured the passage of the bill.I would also like to inform the House that a second amendment, which was proposed by the Greens, was rejected during consideration of this bill in the other place. The Greens proposed an amendment to the bill to include patents which would expire before 1 July 1999. This resulted from representations from one company which has a major product whose patent is due to expire in April next year. This product will not be eligible for a patent extension.The government did not support this proposed amendment since it proposed a number of significant problems. In particular, generic pharmaceutical manufacturers who have already commenced legitimate development work, in anticipation of the expiry of such patents, would have suffered substantial commercial disadvantage through this amendment. If the amendment had been accepted, these generic companies would have been prevented from entering the market for up to another five years. Yet the proposed amendment made no provision for any transitional arrangements to allow monetary compensation or compulsory licensing arrangements to be established between the affected companies.Secondly, a consequence of the amendment was that the government would incur additional costs through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by the delayed entry of these generics onto the market. Estimates suggested these costs could be as high as $40 million a year for the next five years. For these reasons, the government did not support the amendment. However, the government appreciates the concerns raised by the one company that it will not fully share the benefits of the legislation as it currently stands. Therefore, we have committed ourselves to review this issue. I commend the amendment to the House.17:16:006178Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The opposition will not be opposing the amendment that has come from the other place to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1998 as it was supported by us when put at the time. I will make one or two comments very quickly. The amendment which has been proposed by the Democrats in the Senate—as the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) has just pointed out—seeks to have a notification of extension. It states:In respect of an application for an extension approved by the Commissioner under section 76 in a financial year, the patent holder must lodge with the Secretary of the Department, before the end of the following financial year, a return setting out . . . information: which includes—(a) details of the amount and origin of any Commonwealth funds spent in the research and development of the drug which was the subject of the application—There are one or two other points. It is important that the terminology `research and development' is listed here because even as late as this afternoon we saw the Treasurer (Mr Costello) stand in this parliament and, once again, berate the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) supposedly for having R&D syndicates rort the taxation system in Australia. Yet we are about to support an amendment—in this case to intellectual property laws—which is basically saying that genuine and needed research and development should be one of the criteria that is considered when notifying extensions in respect of patent holders to the appropriate government department.Within the last week, in fact, statistical evidence has come out which shows that R&D in Australia has fallen, I think, to its lowest level ever. We on this side of the House find that extraordinary. Whether it be in pharmaceutical products—and, in this particular case, in the legislation that is before us now—or in a more general sense, we find it extraordinary that R&D has fallen to these levels ever since this government came in. Yet all the Treasurer can do is stand in this place, berate my friend the member for Hotham and berate the Labor Party, when in government, for suggesting that R&D in some way was a tax rort. I think most people would understand, whether it be in manufacturing industry, the pharmaceutical industry or high technology industries, that you must have a certain level of R&D to enable products to be developed and to go onto the next phase, which often attracts some sort of financing.DT4CREANMr Crean—The clever country.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN—As the member for Hotham suggests, this will enable Australia to become the clever country and to continue that drive forward which was started under the Labor Party when in government. Regrettably, we have seen R&D basically being slashed, being attacked by this government—specifically by this Treasurer—with the suggestion that in some way it is pandering to and catering for tax rorts. He might be best suited to turn his attention to some of the trust arrangements of some of his colleagues without attacking industry, whether it be pharmaceuticals or anywhere else, and suggesting that in some way a rort is being perpetrated.The amendment before us this afternoon is a very minor amendment, as the minister has suggested. It is important that there be a clear understanding and a properly costed estimate given of the measures, their applications and also the impact on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. All of that is extremely important for any government and any parliament to consider.The pharmaceutical benefits scheme is again under attack because of some of the decisions taken by this government and by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge). It is an issue which, I am sure, we will return to in government in a couple of months time. I say to the minister that we have no objection to this minor amendment that is being considered. For the reasons which were advanced in the other place, we want the bill to have a speedy passage through here and be put into law as quickly as possible.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills6179r5136179Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Page 2 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:4 Industry action agenda (1) Not later than 6 months after the commencement of this Act, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, in consultation with the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, must cause to be prepared an industry action agenda to assist the development of the Australian broadcasting electronics industry. (2) An agenda prepared under subsection (1) must be directed towards ensuring the achievement of the following policy objectives: (a) the objective that the Australian broadcasting electronics industry be efficient, competitive and responsive to the needs of the Australian community; (b) the objective of encouraging investment in innovation and value-adding activities in the broadcasting electronics industry; (c) the objective of providing effective support for Australian exporters of broadcasting electronics technology in gaining access to markets; (d) the objective of encouraging technology transfers throughout the broadcasting electronics industry; (e) the objective of establishing links between educational institutions and the broadcasting electronics industry to improve the skills base for the industry; (f) the objective of promoting strategic commercial relationships between the Australian broadcasting electronics industry and international telecommunications industries. (3) An agenda prepared under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item, substitute:1 Section 28 Repeal the section, substitute:28 Limitation on allocation of commercial television broadcasting licences The ABA must not, after 25 June 1998, allocate any new commercial television licences in any licence area before 31 December 2006.(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:1A After section 28 Insert:28A Section 28 does not apply to the allocation of a licence under section 38A The rule in section 28 does not apply to the allocation of a licence under section 38A.(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item 6, insert:6A Subsections 38A(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) Repeal the subsections, substitute:ABA must grant additional licence (2) As soon as practicable, the ABA must allocate an additional commercial television broadcasting licence to the existing licensee for the licence area.6B Subsection 38A(12) Repeal the subsection.6D Section 73 Repeal the section, substitute:73 Additional licence under section 38A not to result in breach of ownership limits If an additional licence has been allocated under section 38A to the holder of an existing licence, the existing licence and additional licence are to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as being only one licence.6E Paragraph 75(1)(e) Omit "71; and", substitute "71.".6F Paragraph 75(1)(f) Repeal the paragraph.(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 11), after item 7, insert:7A Section 204 (table row relating to refusal to grant an additional period) Repeal the row.(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (lines 10 to 19), omit paragraph (m), substitute: (m) if there is a simulcast period for the licence area of the licence—the licensee will not broadcast a television program in digital mode during the simulcast period for the licence area unless the program is broadcast simultaneously by the licensee in analog mode in that area;(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (line 13), omit "2001", substitute "2000".(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 6 to 12), omit the definition of datacasting service , substitute: datacasting service means a service (other than a broadcasting service) that delivers information (whether in the form of data, text, speech, images or in any other form) to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that information, where the delivery of the service uses the broadcasting services bands.(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 24 (after line 12), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) The ABA must consult with national broadcasters about the implementation of the scheme.(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 26 (line 22) to page 28 (line 7), omit clause 20, substitute: 20 National broadcasters to give implementation plans to the Minister (1) As soon as practicable after the formulation of the national television conversion scheme, a national broadcaster must give the Minister one or more implementation plans relating to the conversion, over time, of the transmission of the national television broadcasting service concerned from analog mode to digital mode. (2) In preparing an implementation plan, a national broadcaster must have regard to the following matters: (a) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—whether the implementation plan is directed towards ensuring the achievement of the following policy objectives: (i) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in each metropolitan coverage area on 1 January 2001; (ii) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode to regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) on or after 1 January 2001 so that all regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) have digital transmission of the service by 1 January 2004; (b) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—the objectives mentioned in subclause 19(3); (c) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a remote coverage area—the special circumstances that apply to the transmission of national television broadcasting services in that area; (d) such other matters (if any) as the national broadcaster considers relevant. (3) If an implementation plan is given to the Minister under this clause, the Minister must: (a) approve the implementation plan; or (b) refuse to approve the implementation plan. (4) In deciding whether to approve an implementation plan under this clause, the Minister must have regard to the following matters: (a) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—whether the implementation plan is directed towards ensuring the achievement of the following policy objectives: (i) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national broadcasting service concerned in digital mode in each metropolitan coverage area on 1 January 2001; (ii) the objective that each national broadcaster should be required to commence transmitting the national television broadcasting service concerned in digital mode to regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) on or after 1 January 2001 so that all regional coverage areas (other than remote coverage areas) have digital transmission of the service by 1 January 2004; (b) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a coverage area that is not a remote coverage area—the objectives mentioned in subclause 19(3); (c) in the case of an implementation plan that relates to a remote coverage area—the special circumstances that apply to the transmission of national television broadcasting services in that area; (d) such other matters (if any) as the Minister considers relevant. (5) Before deciding whether to approve an implementation plan under this clause, the Minister may direct the ABA to give the Minister a report about the matter. (6) If the Minister approves an implementation plan under this clause, the implementation plan comes into force on approval. (7) If the Minister refuses to approve an implementation plan under this clause, the Minister may, by written notice given to the national broadcaster concerned: (a) require the national broadcaster to give a fresh implementation plan under subclause (1); and (b) advise the national broadcaster that, if specified changes were incorporated in the fresh plan, the Minister would be disposed to approve the fresh plan. The notice must also set out the reasons for the refusal. (8) The Minister must cause copies of a notice under subclause (7) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the giving of the notice. (9) A national broadcaster may give the Minister a variation of an approved implementation plan that relates to the national broadcaster. Subclauses (2) to (8) (inclusive) apply to the variation of an implementation plan in a corresponding way to the way in which they apply to an implementation plan.(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 33 (line 26) to page 34 (line 8), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) If there is a simulcast period for a coverage area, a national broadcaster must not broadcast a television program in digital mode in that area during the simulcast period for that area unless the program is broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in analog mode in that area.(12) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 29), after clause 36, insert:36A Modifications if the National Transmission Network Sale Bill is not enacted (1) This clause applies if the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 has not been enacted. (2) For the purposes of dealing with the consequences of that non-enactment, the regulations may provide that this Schedule applies in relation to a national broadcaster subject to such modifications as are specified in the regulations. (3) In this clause: modifications includes additions, omissions and substitutions.(13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 40 (after line 14), after clause 41, insert:41A This Part not to have effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation (1) This Part has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (2) A Proclamation under subclause (1) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved. (3) A Proclamation under subclause (1) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4).(14) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (line 4), omit "2001", substitute "2000". Note: The heading to clause 59 is altered by omitting "2001 " and substituting "2000 ".(15) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (lines 6 to 12), omit paragraph (a).(16) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (line 22), after "with", insert "up to".(17) Schedule 1, item 12, page 53 (after line 24), after paragraph (d), insert: (da) whether any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made in order to allow a commercial television broadcasting licensee to broadcast a television program in digital mode during the simulcast period for a licence area, where the program is incidental and directly linked to a program that is broadcast simultaneously by the licensee in both analog mode and digital mode in that area; (db) whether any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made in order to allow a national broadcaster to broadcast a television program in digital mode during the simulcast period for a coverage area, where the program is incidental and directly linked to a program that is broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in both analog mode and digital mode in that area; (dc) the extent to which any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth are required to be made in order to allow a national broadcaster, during the simulcast period for a coverage area, to use multi-channel transmission capacity to broadcast television programs in digital mode in that area, where: (i) the programs are in addition to programs that are broadcast simultaneously by the national broadcaster in both analog mode and digital mode in that area; and (ii) the broadcast of the programs is in accordance with the charter of the national broadcaster; (dd) whether any amendments of laws of the Commonwealth should be made to deal with the scope of the services that are categorised as datacasting services; (de) whether any amendments of Part 4 of this Schedule should be made;(18) Schedule 1, item 12, page 54 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph (a).(19) Schedule 1, page 57 (after line 16), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 11—Regional equalisation plan64 Regional equalisation plan (1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of this clause, the Minister must, by writing, formulate a plan (the regional equalisation plan ) which specifies the measures proposed to be taken by the Minister or the Commonwealth Government: (a) to facilitate the provision of commercial television broadcasting services transmitted in digital mode in regional licence areas; and (b) to facilitate the provision of datacasting services transmitted in digital mode in regional licence areas by the holders of commercial television broadcasting licences.Objectives (2) In formulating or varying the regional equalisation plan, the Minister must have regard to the following objectives: (a) the objective of maximising the diversity of choice in television services provided in regional licence areas; (b) the objective of bringing to regional licence areas a similar range of entertainment and information services as are available in metropolitan licence areas; (c) the objective of maintaining the financial viability of the commercial television broadcasting industry in regional licence areas; (d) the objective of providing commercial television broadcasting services in regional licence areas that are relevant to, and responsive to, local needs in those areas; (e) the objective of discouraging the concentration of media ownership in regional licence areas. (3) Subclause (2) does not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard.Variation of plan (4) The regional equalisation plan may be varied, but not revoked, in accordance with subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 . (5) Subclause (4) does not limit the application of subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to other instruments under this Act.Disallowable instrument (6) An instrument under subclause (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 .(20) Schedule 2, item 6, page 59 (after line 9), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Subsection (1) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (1B) A Proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved. (1C) A Proclamation under subsection (1A) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(21) Schedule 2, item 6, page 59 (after line 28), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Subsection (2) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (2B) A Proclamation under subsection (2A) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved. (2C) A Proclamation under subsection (2A) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(22) Schedule 2, item 7, page 60 (after line 16), at the end of subsection (3), add: (3A) Subsection (3) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (3B) A Proclamation under subsection (3A) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved. (3C) A Proclamation under subsection (3A) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(23) Schedule 2, item 8, page 61 (after line 4), at the end of section 102A, add: (4) Subsection (3) has no effect until a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (5) A Proclamation under subsection (4) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved. (6) A Proclamation under subsection (4) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.(24) Schedule 2, page 62 (after line 28), at the end of the Schedule, add:20 After Division 8 of Part 3.3 Insert:Division 9—Licences authorising the provision of datacasting services131AD Licences authorising the provision of datacasting services (1) The ACA must not issue a transmitter licence authorising the operation of a transmitter for transmitting datacasting services in digital mode using a part of the spectrum covered by a determination under subsection 34(3) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 . (2) Subsection (1) ceases to have effect on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (3) A Proclamation under subsection (2) must not be made except in accordance with a resolution passed by each House of the Parliament in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given not less than 15 sitting days of that House before the motion is moved. (4) A Proclamation under subsection (2) must not be made before the last occasion on which a copy of a report of a review under subclause 59(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is laid before a House of the Parliament in accordance with subclause 59(4) of that Schedule.17:21:006184Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.Firstly, can I extend good wishes to Ian Cochran, a colleague of many of us in this parliament. As a former Leader of the House in years past, I have valued his guidance and his support. Ian, good luck to you. Let the Hansard show that there was a handshake!DT4CREANMr Crean—I might be able to reach over and shake yours.GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—You can wait your turn. You may be back over here one day, but I won't be around when it happens.The amendments deal with several areas of the Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 that I introduced some time ago in this place. They retain the legal framework and fundamental policy principles of the bill while ensuring there is a full parliamentary scrutiny of the detailed regulatory issues before digital television services commence in 2001.Amendment 1, which was moved by the opposition in the Senate and is supported by the government, will require that, within six months after the digital conversion bill receives royal assent, the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston), in consultation with the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore), will develop an industry action agenda designed to assist the development of the Australian broadcasting electronics industry. The industry action agenda will be required to be directed towards the achievement of clearly stated objectives, including the objective that the Australian broadcasting electronics industry be efficient, competitive and responsive to the needs of the Australian community, the objective of providing effective support for Australian exporters of broadcasting electronics technology and gaining access to markets and the objective of establishing links between educational institutions and the broadcasting electronics industry to improve the skills base for the industry.Through this process, the government will be able to explore any appropriate mechanisms by which the broadcasting electronics industry could be assisted to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the conversion of digital terrestrial television broadcasting. The bill, as introduced by me into the House of Representatives, included a provision that extended the period in which the ABA was prohibited from allocating more than three commercial television licences in any licensed area until a date specified by a proclamation, being a date not earlier than 31 December 2008.Amendments 2 and 18, passed during the committee stage of the debate in the Senate, shortened this moratorium from 2008 to 2006 and removed the proposed review of the moratorium before 31 December 2005. The original moratorium link was set having regard to the significant capital investment which will need to be made by the free to air broadcasters in the conversion from analog to digital. The government, however, is prepared to support the amendments, recognising that they essentially confirm the government's position on the need for a moratorium period. The government did not intend to apply the moratorium to underserved licence areas where there are fewer than three commercial television licences. This was because it did not wish to prevent further competition in these areas pending the outcome of the statutory review into possible legislative amendments to extend the number of commercial television services available to underserved regional viewers.However, in view of the strong concerns expressed by regional broadcasters—and we thank them for those representations—about the potential impact that new competition would have during the digital conversion process, particularly in solus markets, the government is prepared to accept amendments 2 to 5 and amendment 16. Amendment 3 provides that the moratorium does not apply to the allocation of an additional licence to an existing licensee under section 38A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Amendment 4 amends section 38A and related provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act to provide, on application, for the automatic allocation of an additional licence to an existing licensee in an underserved area.Amendments 5 and 16 are consequential amendments. Amendments 6 and 11 amend those parts of the bill that currently allow national and commercial broadcasters to provide programs which are incidental and directly linked to the program simulcast in analog and digital mode by removing all references to incidental and directly linked programs. This has the effect of restricting these broadcasters to transmitting substantially the same program in both analog mode and digital mode. However, as a result of amendments 7, 14 and 17, the minister will be required to conduct a statutory review by the year 2000 into whether amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act should be made to allow free to air broadcasters to transmit enhanced programming which is incidental and directly linked to their simulcast programs.Amendment 15 makes a consequential amendment to the existing review provisions in the bill. Amendments 8, 15 and 20 to 23 amend the provisions of the bill relating to datacasting. Schedule 2 to the bill would have amended the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to allow free to air broadcasters who hold digital transmitter licences under that act to use residual transmission capacity to provide datacasting services. The amendments cause these provisions to have no effect until a day to be fixed by a proclamation, with a requirement that a proclamation not be made until, firstly, the minister has tabled a report of a statutory review into the scope of the amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act in relation to the scope of the datacasting definition and, secondly, a resolution has been passed by each house of parliament.Amendment 24 provides that a transmitter licence authorising a datacast service by someone other than a broadcaster using available broadcasting spectrum cannot be issued until a proclamation has been made following a resolution of each house of parliament and a completion of a statutory review. (Extension of time granted) This will mean that neither free to air broadcasters nor other potential datacasters will be allowed to provide datacasting services on a permanent basis until such proclamation is made.Amendment 9 makes minor amendment to the bill to include an express provision requiring the ABA to consult with the national broadcasters about the implementation of a national television conversion scheme. Amendment 10 replaces clause 20 of proposed schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act dealing with national broadcast for implementation plans with a new clause 20. New clause 20 will require a national broadcaster to prepare an implementation plan, having regard to objectives of a conversion scheme, start-up dates and other matters its board considers relevant. It will require the minister, in considering whether to approve the plan, to have regard to the same criteria provided the plan comes into force when it is approved by the minister. It will require the minister, if he refuses to approve the plan, to provide a statement of reasons and specify what changes would be required to the plan in order for him to approve it, and it will require the minister to table the statement in parliament.New clause 20 recognises both the statutory independence of the ABC and the SBS in formulating an implementation plan and the accountability of the minister in making decisions on whether or not to approve an implementation plan. It also addresses the concern that clause 20, as originally drafted, did not include mechanisms to facilitate the ABC and SBS reaching agreement with the minister on the terms of their implementation plans.Amendment 11 deletes from the bill the provision which would allow the ABC and the SBS to transmit multichannel programming if authorised by regulations. Amendment 17 includes a requirement to conduct a statutory review into the extent to which the Broadcasting Services Act should be amended to allow the national broadcasters to use multichannel capacity to transmit programs in accordance with their charter responsibilities. Amendment 15 makes a consequential amendment to the existing review provisions in the bill.Amendment 12 deals with the possibility of the National Transmission Network Sale Bill 1997 not being enacted by including a fail-safe provision which allows regulations to be made to modify relevant provisions of the digital conversion bill. Amendment 13 relates to part 4 of proposed schedule 4 of the Broadcasting Services Act. It provides standards relating to high definition television, captioning for the deaf and hearing impaired. Technical standards and datacasting will not have effect until a day to be fixed by a proclamation passed by each house of parliament.Amendments 14 and 17 provide for reviews by the year 2000 into whether any amendment to the laws of the Commonwealth should be made in regard to these matters. Again, standards would not be able to be made until completion of a statutory review into whether further amendments should be made to part 4 and a resolution had been passed by both houses of parliament.Together, these amendments address opposition concerns in regard to the extent of parliamentary scrutiny in relation to issues such as datacasting, multi-channelling, high definition television standards, et cetera, while providing a clear legal and policy framework for the digital conversion of free-to-air television broadcasting services and enabling further legislative amendments to be made before the start of digital television in the year 2001.In announcing its policy framework for digital television, the government indicated that it would consider giving financial assistance to regional and remote broadcasters in meeting their implementation targets. The details of this financial assistance cannot be finalised until further planning has been undertaken by the ABA and the costs of digital conversion are known.Amendment 19, moved by the government, further demonstrates our commitment to regional areas. It requires the minister to determine a regional equalisation plan specifying those measures to be undertaken by the government to facilitate the provision of digital services by commercial television broadcasters in regional licence areas.The regional equalisation plan will be required to have regard to specified policy objectives relating to the diversity of choice in television services, giving regional licence areas a similar range of entertainment and information services as are available in metropolitan licence areas, maintaining the financial viability of the commercial television industry in regional licence areas, providing commercial television services in regional licence areas that are relevant and responsive to consumer needs and discouraging concentration of media ownership in regional licence areas. The regional equalisation plan will be able to be varied by the minister but not revoked and will be subject to disallowance in the parliament.With these few comments, I commend the amendments to the House and thank all those members concerned with the debate in previous times on these important issues.17:32:006187Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—With indulgence, I too would like to extend my best wishes to Ian Cochran in his retirement. I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, that I was not aware that this was happening until it was formally announced by the Speaker today. No doubt we will have the opportunity to say something more about Ian at a later stage. But it has been a pleasure to work with him. I wish him the best in his retirement. Thanks very much, Ian.The Television Broadcasting Services (Digital Conversion) Bill 1998 has passed through the Senate. It is a positive outcome for the television broadcasting industry and for the Australian public. It is only that because essentially the bill now significantly incorporates all of the policy initiatives proposed by Labor. Without that there would have been no chance of an industry plan being developed to establish an Australian base for electronics manufacturing for the digital television industry. Also without Labor's input, regional broadcasters would not be looking forward to a regional equalisation plan and regional viewers' futures would not be so rosy.Through the amendments to this bill, Labor has been able to ensure that the legislative framework now in place for the introduction of digital television to Australia is a significant improvement on the original bill put forward by the government and when this was debated last time in this chamber. This legislation not only now addresses—which it did not do in the government's original proposal—the needs of regional broadcasters and the development of an Australian industry, but it also gives in-principle support to the ABC and SBS to pursue opportunities for multi-channelling. This legislation as amended completely encapsulates each of Labor's original amendments. The government did try to preserve its ban on commercial licences until 2008 but it eventually had to concede that the ban should not extend beyond 2006—the position put forward, again, by the Labor Party.I too would like to place on record the appreciation of the opposition and thanks to our colleague in the Senate, Senator Chris Schacht, as well as to the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) for having worked to ensure that amendments were made to this bill that would satisfy all of the policy objections that had been raised by others, but significantly by ourselves, to the original proposal.Labor is pleased to have been able to contribute to the digital conversion policy process. We consider that our actions have ensured that the bill as amended is good for Australian consumers, good for the Australian broadcasting industry, and good for the Australian electronics manufacturing industry. Without Labor's objections to the original bill, these groups would not have been adequately catered for. Without Labor's objections, regional broadcasters and consumers in remote and regional Australia would have been left high and dry. We have ensured that the particular needs of these groups have been addressed under the legislation.Once again, it has been up to Labor to set the agenda, with the government falling in behind us. It is not the first time, of course, in relation to industry policy. The government did it in relation to the automotive industry. It did it last week in relation to the textile, clothing and footwear industry, although not entirely to our liking because it was not prepared to set a jobs target. Of course, it should again be noted that no legislation has yet been introduced by this government in relation to the TCF package and the car legislation is yet to be debated—both issues that could have happened had the government been prepared to bring the Senate and ourselves back at the time originally scheduled.The government followed us in relation to anti-dumping, essentially picking up the thrust of Labor's anti-dumping bill. It did it partly in relation to Labor's proposals on bounties, where we forced the government to retain the ship bounty and to extend the book bounty. We are pleased that it has done it again in relation to digital television. We thank the government for it and look forward to further consultation and debate in relation to the development of an industry strategy and a regional equalisation plan.I conclude by saying that again it is the circumstances of Labor showing the way because we are the only party in this place genuinely committed to industry development proposals. We have used the opportunity of this legislation to develop them for a newly emerging industry. We will continue to do so in the future.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees61886188618817:37:006188Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On indulgence, I add my voice to that of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and others in wishing Ian Cochran all the very best in his forthcoming retirement. It has been a pleasure working with you over the years that I have been here. You have been honest and straight with all of us. Your advice has been appreciated and we all respect you to the highest degree. May you have health, happiness and wealth in your retirement.On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report: Report 363—Asset management by Commonwealth agencies.Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment6188618817:39:006188Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I move:That the House do now adjourn.I wish Ian Cochran and all well.618817:39:006188Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Like my colleagues, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made to Ian, wish him well in his retirement and express appreciation for his support and assistance over the years.We are all undergoing an experience with Centrelink, the dramatic new job market and the massive changes being brought by this government. I want to read to the House a letter I received back in May. This is the first chance I have had to read it. The letter is to me from a constituent from Maryville. She wrote:I am writing to inform you of my concerns with my first experience of applying for a job using Job Network.This morning between 10 am to 11.30 am I used the touch screens in the Newcastle Centre Link Office to read every local job advertisement along with specific job categories, state and Australia wide.I printed out 2 local jobs to apply for and returned home to ring the contact phone number beginning at 12.30 pm.The first number I rang for a local position connected to a telecom message stating this number did not exist and to check that I had the correct number—I checked that the number I had rung was the same as the touch screen print out . . . And the constituent quotes the number. It continues: I then tried ringing this number without the first 2 digits. This was answered by a private citizen with no knowledge of the job to whom I apologised for disturbing.My third ph. call was to the Customer Service Officer on 132850 and explained that the job number did not exist. I was given another Centre Link number to ring 131158. This 4th ph. call the Service Officer "Diana" said that they were a general enquiries office in Hobart . . . and advised me to ring 132850. My 5th ph call was to this number which I had previously rung. I explained all of the previous calls to the customer service officer called "Michelle" and she said she would try to find out and ring me back. 20 minutes later she rang me with another number to contact 1300363365. On this 6th call I spoke to Daniel . . . he said he could give me only general information or register complaints but did give me the ph number of 131715 where the jobs are registered.This my 7th ph call was answered after 7½ minutes in a queue by an operator identifying herself as Queen (in the A.C.T.) I related all of the previous ph calls and the details from the job printout . . . this is the office where all these jobs are put on the internet. She said she would ring me back in 20 minutes at 1.40 pm. At 2.30 Queen returned my call and said the job had been listed today and possibly it was a hoax or possibly the number had been incorrectly given and suggested as it was a private registered number that I should check in the local phone book. The person doesn't exist in the phone book.Firstly, I must compliment all the staff I talked to for being polite and their pleasant telephone manners and I believe mine were equally polite and considerate. However it does not excuse the systems inadequacy in solving let alone reporting a problem and finding a job. As this was my first attempt to applying for 1 job, I am left wondering how many other hoax jobs are inflating the jobs recorded on this system. Also there seems to be no checking/verification or safeguards to who or what jobs are placed in this new system. Today's experience was like being a character a Kafka novel.That constituent went back the next day to check for jobs again and found the same job that she reported on all those phone calls was still listed. That was back in May. Of course, that was a good experience because now my constituents tell me it takes hours to get through.I have had one constituent tell me they spent a week trying to advise the Department of Social Security of a change of address. I have had another constituent saying they spent days trying to get through to advise them of another very small change in information. I have also had numerous constituents, as no doubt all members of the House have, experiencing problems with the new youth allowance. The confusion and chaos being caused by these changes, which appear to be driven by ideology and not service, and the idea that they are called customer service and yet you wait on the phone line for half and hour, an hour or an hour and a half is a travesty and a joke. It is tragic for the people involved who are genuinely looking for jobs and trying to help themselves to be treated in this way by a government that professes to be caring. In fact, it is an insult not just to their intelligence but to their entitlements. (Time expired)618917:44:006189Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—Before I start I would like to also pay tribute to Mr Ian Cochran. He will be greatly missed in this place, and I wish him well in his retirement.This morning I spoke about the regional forest agreements legislation and I want to add to those remarks. The Carr New South Wales government set aside most of the best blocks of timber in interim deferred areas. These areas were to be available to industry as a last resort if sufficient logs could not be found on the remaining production forest area. The Greens always have regarded these areas as potential new national parks and Minister Yeadon has now advised State Forests that, no matter what, they may not be logged. The effect of this is that there are almost no areas available for logging north of Grafton and the foresters at Casino are having enormous difficulty in supplying logs to a number of sawmills. State Forests are hauling logs from Nambucca Heads to Woodenbong, a distance of 350 kilometres one way. The extra haulage costs of about $450 per load are being paid for by the Commonwealth under the FISAP funding provisions.The aerial photography project is seriously flawed due to inept interpreters, lack of field verification of the forest typing and no apparent quality control. Of the 16 map sheets in the upper north-east area, two-thirds may have accuracy less than 50 per cent and some may be as low as 30 per cent. One random check of a Murwillumbah district photo revealed that one-third of all the areas that were typed as rainforest, and therefore excluded from logging, were in fact eucalypt forest types.The scientific work which is being done as part of the RFA process must be both accurate and comprehensive. It is not appropriate to use inaccurate or outdated information in decision making, which will result in a 20-year agreement, to meet a political expediency. Land use decision making needs to be carefully evaluated in terms of social, environmental and economic impacts. It is apparent that the current New South Wales state government considers that environmental impacts outweigh all others and that decisions have already been made in regard to additions to the national park estate. These additional parks will be at the expense of production forest areas which have sustained a viable and regionally based timber industry over many years.Sustainability of log production is a function of the volume of logs to be cut, the area of productive forest, the standing volume of logs currently on the area of productive forest and the growth over time of the forest. The New South Wales government has already set the level of log production by granting five-year term agreements to sawmills throughout the state. These agreements may be extended by an additional term if some yet to be defined value adding criteria are met.At the same time, they have seriously depleted the productive area of the forest by dedication of national parks and deferral of logging from significant areas of high quality forest. They have clearly foreshadowed an intention to dedicate another 500,000 hectares of national park, the greater part of which will come from existing State Forests areas. This pre-emptive decision making is likely to lead to unsustainable sawlog cuts which will see further industries close and a future government having to compensate the lost log volumes from the term agreement holders. It does not seem to matter that we are undertaking a scientific land use decision making exercise in negotiating an RFA; the Carr government has already made up its mind.The state departments are being instructed to cut corners and use the old data from the interim process. There is some indication that State Forests are having difficulty with the growth model, which is fundamental to the process. They are considering utilising the 1996 BOG data instead of ensuring that the current work is complete and accurate. Similarly, the National Parks and Wildlife Service have also indicated that they may revert to this old data.The Upper North-East Regional Forest Forum pointed out some basic errors in the land tenure map quite some time ago. To date there has been no indication from the departments that these have been fixed or that there has been a check of tenures for accuracy. Land tenure is a fundamental input to land use decision making. I understand that the Commonwealth has recently granted the New South Wales government an additional $500,000 to fix the tenure maps and as a trade-off to the state for not altering the RFA boundaries. This seems to be an inordinately large amount of money to fix the tenure maps and for a problem which should not have occurred in the first place. It was the Carr government that wanted to change the already agreed boundaries, the effect of which would have been to have vastly more forest reserved in national parks.619017:49:006190Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I will be brief, and I would hope that my colleague will have a short opportunity to speak. I want to record some brief remarks of appreciation given the circumstances of the Tasmanian parliament now going to an election. It has been announced that three of the Tasmanian members of the Liberal Party are retiring and this is an occasion on which I should simply record that, whilst of course the contest will be fierce, and perhaps some who are not volunteers will also be retiring, those three have given long service to the community of Tasmania. In particular, I want to record my own personal regard for the work of Ron Cornish, with whom I had considerable dealings when I was Minister for Justice. He was always cooperative and very helpful. We were able to work effectively towards the reforms in the justice area that we were each committed to, and I think that without his goodwill and cooperation many of the initiatives that both Michael Lavarch and I were committed to would have come to much less fruition.I remember seeing John Beswick at the time of the tragedy at Port Arthur and the distress on his face when he was intimately engaged with police operations that were then in train, and seeing him in despair at what to do in those circumstances. I saw a very genuine man much moved by the responsibility of his position and, again, his role in playing a part in a national response on gun control is much appreciated on both sides of this House. John Cleary is also resigning. Whilst I have had a lot less to do with John in a personal way, I am sure that everybody would wish him well.I might also, of course, mention Ian Cochran, who is retiring from this parliament, and pass on my best regards. I am sure everybody else in the House is doing the same.As a partisan for the Labor Party in the next state election, I believe the Tasmanian Liberal Party has put upon itself a burden which will prove to be insuperable. The Tasmanian community is as implacably opposed to the sale of the Hydro-Electric Corporation as the Australian community is to the sale of Telstra, and the Tasmanian community will have an early occasion to speak on these issues where national assets or state assets are being sold off for short-term advantage. It will give the Australian and Tasmanian community a window to look at the kind of community reaction that is implicit in the rejection of those kinds of strategies.Nonetheless, I thought it appropriate that I did speak briefly on this adjournment, at least placing on the record an appreciation for some long-serving members of the Liberal Party who I believe should not go unremarked. 619117:53:006191Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Most would agree that one of the key challenges facing the country is the stubbornly high level of unemployment. If its economic impact is severe, its social consequences are devastating. If as a nation we fail to provide work for those who want it, we fail to provide for self-esteem, for fulfilment and for a sense of belonging to the broader community.We have made some progress over the past two years, with unemployment coming down from the 8.6 per cent we inherited from Labor to just over eight per cent now, a figure that would be falling far more sharply had it not been for what is happening in Asia. But, clearly, more does need to be done. In my own electorate of Macquarie, unemployment is around 6.2 per cent, much lower than the national average but still far too high. At the local level, we have a large number of individuals and organisations doing their best in the fight to get people into jobs. We have close to 5,000 small businesses. Most have been doing it tough for some years but some are starting to expand and employ. We have a number of good Job Network providers. In spite of the alarmist nonsense of Labor, many of these are starting to get the runs on the board in a very successful way. For example, Mission Employment Katoomba in their first month significantly overachieved their quota, placing 40 people into jobs.We have two good work for the dole programs—Hawkesbury Skills and Intelife at Wentworth Falls. It is exciting to see people already leaving these programs to take up full-time jobs and full-time training courses. We have had two successfully completed Green Corps projects in different parts of the Macquarie electorate, providing valuable work opportunities in environmental projects, and we have two others currently running. We have excellent NEIS programs—new enterprise incentive scheme programs—run by the Penrith Business Enterprise Centre and Mission Employment Katoomba. These exciting programs take unemployed people and turn them into not only self-employed people but also small business people employing others.The government has an important local role in assisting these groups in my electorate by providing work for the dole contracts, providing Green Corps projects, assisting the NEIS programs and assisting small business. For example, over the last couple of weeks, we have had two positive government commitments to help tourism in the local area, one of the biggest local employers. One was a commitment of $18,000 for a rural tourism feasibility study in the Hawkesbury and the other was a commitment of $60,000 to employ a full-time coordinator for the Blue Mountains to promote local tourist events.As well as specific local initiatives, of equal importance is the government's management of the national employment issues and the national economic climate. I believe there has been a three-pronged attack here which needs to continue. The first part of the attack has been increasing job readiness, with an increasing emphasis on vocational training, literacy programs, apprenticeships and traineeships so that our young people particularly are more job ready.The second prong of the attack has been the removal of barriers to employment. We have started to do this with some of the changes to the workplace relations programs to increase flexibility in the workplace so that our employers are more readily able to put the unemployed on. The third prong has been policies to produce sustainable economic growth so that there is a growing demand for labour. This needs to be built on lower interest rates and higher private sector investment, not on deficit and debt. It should not be built on Labor's stop-start, boom-bust policies that were built on higher interest rates, deficit and debt; it needs to be built on low interest rates, high investment and sustainable growth.It is timely that we remember Labor's record of unemployment, a record that shamefully averaged 8.7 per cent over 13 years, a record that reached 11.2 per cent in their deliberately orchestrated recession of 1991-92 which callously threw hundreds of thousands of people out of work. It is timely also to remind ourselves again of Labor's potential to inflict further damage if they were to be returned to government. It would mean a return to the deficits, which would mean higher interest rates, slower growth and rising unemployment. It would mean a return to Labor's refusal to pass the unfair dismissal laws legislation and greater hindrances to small businesses, preventing them taking on new employees. Labor would return Australia to more restrictive work practices, making it more difficult for small businesses to be able to employ, survive and thrive. Labor's refusal to undertake tax reform further impedes economic growth and employment opportunities. The best way to continue growing employment opportunities is to ensure the responsible economic management of a coalition government.619217:57:006192Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I too want to talk about economic development opportunities and the plight of the Wollongong area and the Illawarra region in particular. The concern I have at the present moment is that, regrettably, the level of unemployment in the Illawarra still remains stubbornly well above the national average. Despite the best endeavours of people like the Lord Mayor and state members who have been beavering away trying to attract new industry to the area in respect of telecommunications—which I have been involved in as well—and despite the best endeavours of people to look at the way the traditional industries of the Illawarra, such as the steel and coal industries, continue to flourish, regrettably we are seeing almost on a weekly or fortnightly basis decisions taken by boardrooms not in Wollongong but in Melbourne and places elsewhere to shut down many of those industries or, if not to shut them down entirely, to at least pare back on the work force associated with them.Recently, we saw yet another coalmine associated with BHP shut down. That threw 150 employees on the unemployment scrap heap for a period of time until hopefully they can be redeployed somewhere else in Australia. They are expected to up their family and just leave the Illawarra in search of other employment. Regrettably, in an area where those sorts of opportunities are starting to dwindle because of a variety of factors, it is not going to be easy to place people of that ilk in jobs in the local area.There is one salvation that is on the horizon—at least a real opportunity that is coming—which the federal government is considering at the moment. This is one of the things which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) seems to delight himself with at the present moment. I am talking about the consideration of the very fast train proposal linking Sydney with Canberra. One of the proposals which I have spoken on in this House previously is being advanced by the Transrapid Corporation and it is for a Maglev proposal using the next generation technology. It is the only one out of the four proposals which will have a stop in Wollongong.The benefit that will result will be that the journey between Wollongong and Sydney will be reduced to 22 minutes. So, whilst we are still reorienting and looking at ways to diversify our economic base further with improvements in the tourist industry that will come with the construction of new hotels and so on, getting the Transrapid Maglev proposal off the ground will open up a huge employment market in Sydney.That proposal, as I understand it, is with the government for consideration. A decision was to be taken and announced this week about which of the four consortia were to be given the opportunity to go further. That decision has now been put on hold. We are not sure when it is going to be taken. But one thing which does greatly concern me and which I raised in the local community, because I had it on very good authority, is that the Transrapid proposal—the one that would provide a huge economic boost for Wollongong because the steel would be accessed through BHP's Port Kembla works and they are talking about putting a servicing facility, a maintenance facility, in Wollongong for the whole project—looks like it could be scuttled because there are advisers working out of the Prime Minister's office who suggest that, because of some of the people who make up the consortium for Transrapid, it should not advance to the next stage.The reason being advanced is that Janet Holmes a Court, for some reason, has been considered not a worthy person to be involved in the proposal because of some perceived links with the Labor Party. I have never heard of anything more ridiculous. We are talking, after all, in this nation about four major companies all being involved in the consortium bids, yet one is being singled out simply because the personnel in the Prime Minister's office perhaps do not think it should go to the next stage.It is important that this issue be considered on its merits. It should be considered on the merits of the next generation technology and on the fact that it is the most environmentally friendly of all the proposals. It is certainly the one which offers the fastest speed times, and it will open up some tremendous economic opportunities for Wollongong and the Illawarra.I urge the Prime Minister to personally look at this issue, not leave it to these advisers who have some perceived bias about the consortium partners, to look at it on its merits and to give some real consideration for assisting the Illawarra. The support of the member for Hughes (Mrs Vale) and the member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash) has already been advanced, and we look forward to a regional approach on issues such as this continuing. We certainly hope that they would use their good offices to see the Prime Minister—(Time expired)619318:02:006193Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—In a letter dated 31 March 1994, the former Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating, informed the Registrar of Members' Interests that he had disposed of his piggery interests, including Euphron Pty Ltd and the Parkville Pig Stud Pty Ltd, on 7 March 1994 to Mr Achilles Constantinidis and his family company, Sephrenia.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In question time today, particular issues were ruled out by you and ministers were required not to respond to questions that seemed to respond to the same sort of issue that the honourable member is raising now. I would simply suggest that the member is out of order in raising the sorts of issues where a former member of this place cannot possibly respond.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cunningham, having been a Speaker of this place, knows quite well that this matter is in order at this stage of the proceedings, but it is not in asking questions.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—On 21 April 1994, a person named Asimo Hantzis was appointed either the secretary or the director of 15 of the Keating piggery companies, including secretary of Euphron and director of the Parkville Pig Stud. Significantly, Mr Keating was secretary of Pleuron until 5 July 1994, while Asimo Hantzis was secretary of Euphron from 21 April 1994, an overlap of 2½ months. (Quorum formed) Who is this Asimo Hantzis who was the secretary of Euphron while Mr Keating was still a shareholder in Euphron?Motion (by Mr Martin) put:That the member be not further heard.18:11:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)23Albanese, A. Bevis, A. R.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. *McMullan, R. F.Morris, A. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Wilton, G. S.51Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Charles, R. E.Draper, P. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Gash, J.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Johnston, R. Kelly, J. M.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Neville, P. C.Prosser, G. D. Randall, D. J.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Truss, W. E. Vale, D. S.West, A. G. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.Adams, D. G. H. Anderson, J. D.Baldwin, P. J. Cobb, M. R.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Dargavel, S. J. Nugent, P. E.Evans, M. J. Taylor, W. L.Jenkins, H. A. Reid, N. B.Lee, M. J.Jull, D. F.Melham, D. Elson, K. S.Thomson, K. J. Tuckey, C. W.Willis, R. Halverson, R. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.(Time expired)619418:15:006194O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Tonight is the last opportunity I will have in this parliament to farewell many National Party members from the 38th parliament because it is odds on they won't be here in the 39th. Seeing that the government has put back the next sitting to 31 August—Motion (by Mr Truss) put:That the member be not further heard.18:19:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)47Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Charles, R. E. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Gash, J.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Johnston, R. Kelly, J. M.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Neville, P. C.Prosser, G. D. Randall, D. J.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Truss, W. E.Vale, D. S. West, A. G.Worth, P. M.24Albanese, A. Bevis, A. R.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. *McMullan, R. F.Morris, A. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Theophanous, A. C. Wilton, G. S.Anderson, J. D. Adams, D. G. H.Cobb, M. R. Baldwin, P. J.Elson, K. S. Melham, D.Halverson, R. G. Willis, R.Jull, D. F. Lee, M. J.Nugent, P. E. Dargavel, S. J.Reid, N. B. Jenkins, H. A.Taylor, W. L. Evans, M. J.Tuckey, C. W. Thomson, K. J. * denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.619518:23:006195Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—On 31 May 1996, Asimo Hantzis was summoned to appear at the Sutherland District Court on 23 July 1996 in relation to the non-lodgment of the 1995 return for the piggery companies.Motion (by Mr Crean) put:That the member be not further heard.18:27:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)24Albanese, A. Bevis, A. R.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. *McMullan, R. F.Morris, A. A. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Theophanous, A. C. Wilton, G. S.44Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Charles, R. E. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Gash, J.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Johnston, R. Kelly, J. M.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.McLachlan, I. M. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Neville, P. C.Prosser, G. D. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Truss, W. E. Vale, D. S.West, A. G. Worth, P. M.Adams, D. G. H. Anderson, J. D.Baldwin, P. J. Cobb, M. R.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Dargavel, S. J. Nugent, P. E.Evans, M. J. Taylor, W. L.Jenkins, H. A. Reid, N. B.Lee, M. J.Jull, D. F.Melham, D. Elson, K. S.Thomson, K. J. Tuckey, C. W.Willis, R. Halverson, R. G. * denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.(Time expired)Motion (by Mr Truss) agreed to:That the question be now put.Original question put:That the House do now adjourn.18:35:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)22Albanese, A. Bevis, A. R.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Evans, G. J. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B. *McMullan, R. F. Morris, A. A.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Quick, H. V. Sercombe, R. C. G. *Theophanous, A. C. Wilton, G. S.43Andrew, J. N. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Broadbent, R. E.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Charles, R. E. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Gash, J.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Johnston, R. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McLachlan, I. M.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, W. L.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Truss, W. E.Vale, D. S. West, A. G.Worth, P. M.Adams, D. G. H. Anderson, J. D.Baldwin, P. J. Cobb, M. R.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Dargavel, S. J. Nugent, P. E.Evans, M. J. Taylor, W. L.Jenkins, H. A. Reid, N. B.Lee, M. J.Jull, D. F.Melham, D. Elson, K. S.Thomson, K. J. Tuckey, C. W.Willis, R. Halverson, R. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Under the standing orders, I will call the minister at the table as it is time allocated for government business. I call the Minister for Defence.Miscellaneous61966196McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLANHT4BarkerLPDefence10—For the information of honourable members, I table documents dealing with the business affairs of a former Prime Minister.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I move that the minister be no longer heard.HT4McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLAN—I table them. Thank you.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—And I move:That the House do now adjourn.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is that the House do now adjourn.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The papers have been tabled. The honourable member has no motion that he can move. The question is that the House do now adjourn.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I move to where we go, I would like to just report to the House that Mr Cochran—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The House now stands adjourned until Monday, 31 August 1998 at 12.30 p.m. in accordance with the resolution agreed to this sitting.18:42:006196House adjourned at 6.42 p.m. until Monday, 31 August 1998, at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this sitting.Miscellaneous61966196Ms Ellis asked Mr Speaker on 4 June 1998:My question refers to the trial in this chamber of various locations being tried by Hansard. It appears that a possible transcription error may have occurred during this period. I refer to pages 3974 and 4014 of the Proof Hansard of 28 May for this House and the Main Committee. I note that Hansard has recorded a speech from the member for Makin in the Main Committee at 1.25 p.m. on that day and another speech in the House at 5.41 p.m. on the same day. These speeches appear to be identical. As I do not imagine for one minute that the member for Makin would make the same speech twice, would you please check with Hansard on the possibility of an error in transcription and get back to the House.10000SPEAKERMr Speaker—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Hansard has advised that it has checked the audio recordings of the two speeches and its reports and that the member for Makin delivered substantially but not completely identical speeches between 1.25 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. in the Main Committee and between 5.41 p.m. and 5.46 p.m. in the House of Representatives chamber. The second speech concludes with additional material to that delivered in the Main Committee.6197Mr Fitzgibbon asked Mr Speaker on 4 June 1998:My question also relates to the Hansard trial and follows on very logically from the question put by the member for Namadgi. On the morning of 28 May, the Newcastle Herald quoted extensively from a speech presented by the member for Paterson which, it says, was made on the day prior to the 28th, the 27th. On checking the Hansard I find that the comments attributed to Mr Baldwin were not made until 1.16 p.m. on 28 May. Given that the member for Paterson would not seek to mislead the Newcastle Herald , I wonder whether you can check whether there has been difficulty at the Hansard end and whether indeed that might be as a result of the trial you have put in place.10000SPEAKERMr Speaker—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Hansard has checked this matter and the Hansard report accurately records the time and date of the delivery of that part of the speech by the honourable member for Paterson. However, later on 4 June, the member for Paterson as reported in the Official Hansard at page 4915 made a personal explanation to explain the circumstances relating to his speech, the first part of which was delivered at 6.02 p.m. on 26 May and the second part made in the adjournment debate in the Main Committee at 1.16 p.m. on 28 May. Subsequently, the member for Hunter referred again to the matter, as reported at page 4922 of the Official Hansard of 4 June 1998.I am satisfied that the Hansard report is accurate and that no relationship can be drawn between the Hansard report and the Hansard trial.Documents6197The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 15 July 1998:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Rules 1998 Regional Council Election Amendment (No. 1).Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 223.Aged Care Act—Determinations 1998 ACA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 99th Inter-Parliamentary Conference at Windhoek, Namibia and bilateral visits to Angola, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, 5-23 April 1998—Report, July 1998—Erratum.Christmas Island Act—Ordinance 1998 No. 3.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Exemption 1998 No. CASA 26.Statutory Rules 1998 No. 219.Currency Act—Determination 1998 No. 5.Customs Act—Instruments of approval 1998 Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22.Defence Act—Determination 1998 Defence Force (Superannuation) (Productivity Benefit) (Amendment) No. 3.Determinations under section 58B 1998 Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Export Control Orders 1998 No. 2.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 222.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 217.Health Insurance Act—Determination 1998 Health Insurance (Billing Agents—Conditions of Approval).Guidelines 1998 Health Insurance (Approval of Billing Agents).Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 220.Health Insurance Commission Act—Determination 1998 Two Way Agency.Higher Education Funding Act—Guidelines 1998 Nos. T16, T17. Lands Acquisition Act—Statement under section 125.Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Orders 1998 Nos. L17, L18, M80.Migration Act—Statements under section—48B (3).72 (3).345 (6).351 (13).417 (15).Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Instrument 1998 Military Superannuation and Benefits Trust Deed (Amendment) (No. 3).National Health Act—Determinations 1998 Nos.ACC 20, ACC 21, HIG 4, PB 13.Native Title Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 221.Quarantine Act—Quarantine proclamation, 30 June 1998.Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Act and provisions of Acts shall come into operation—Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 —1 July 1998.Company Law Review Act 1998 —Section 3 and Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4, 1 July 1998.Taxation Laws Amendment (Company Law Review) Act 1998 —Act, except for items 23, 54, 55 and 56 of Schedule 5, and Schedule 6, 1 July 1998.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. FAT7, FAT8, LES 29.Radiocommunications Act—Instrument 1998 Radiocommunications Class Licence (Infrared Devices) Amendment (No. 1).Rice Levy Act—Specification 1998 Rice Levy No. 1.Sales Tax Assessment Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 218.Taxation Administration Act—Determination 1998 No. TD 93/44 Addendum.Ruling 1998 No. TR 12.Telecommunications Act 1997 —Direction 1998 Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) No. 1 of 1997 (Amendment No. 1).Answers to Questions in Writing6199The following answers to questions were circulated:6199(Question No. 2196)21966199Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 September 1997:Did he say that a goods and services tax, nor anything resembling it, would never be a part of a Coalition Government's policy; if so, what was meant by his statement.6199Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The commitment of the Coalition to the Australian people prior to the last election was that no new taxes would be introduced or existing taxes increased. The Government has honoured that commitment, and a goods and services tax has not been, and will not be, introduced in the lifetime of the present Parliament.The Government's plans for fundamental tax reform will be presented to the Australian people before the next election, and they will be able to vote for or against the Government and those plans. If the Australian people support tax reform, they will vote for it. If the Government wins the election, the Government will have a mandate to introduce tax reform in the next Parliament and the Opposition will have no moral or political authority to oppose it in the Senate.6199(Question No. 2538)25386199McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 20 November 1997:(1) Has the Minister's Department engaged consultants since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) which consultants have been engaged, (b) what was the nature of the work undertaken in each case and (c) what sum was paid in each case.(2) What is the estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the Minister's Department for which no payment has been made.6199Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The Department provides information on consultancies, as it is required to do, each year in the annual report. The information for the period 2 March 1996 to 30 June 1996 is available in Supplementary Paper Number 10 to the annual report for 1995-96. The information for the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997 is available in Appendix 8 to the annual report for 1996-97. These annual reports are obtainable from the Parliamentary Library—Parliament House.The information for the period 1 July 1997 to 21 November 1997 is set out in the attached table.All Consultancies Approved from 1 July 1997 to 21 November 1997:Agreed Contract Price for each Consultancy; and Actual Payments for each ConsultancyConsultantActual Payments from 1/7/97 to 21/11/97 ($)Total Contact Price ($)PurposeProgram 1: Public HealthCulteral Perspectives Pty Ltd7,39218,480Develop a draft action plan for the education of people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds on the prevention of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis CFredrickson, Ms N40,00060,000Analyse options for combined TGA/ANZFA IT services Terry Hayes & Associates67,50067,500Review regulatory arrangements in regard to export function of listing of non-prescription drugsTom Wade & AssociatesNil32,570Develop options for the involvement of consumers in the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee and the Medicines Evaluation Committee processUniversity of Wollongong9,00018,000Analyse and report on funding levers for public health with the health systemWall, Mr B34,50034,500Review regulatory arrangements in regard to export function of listing of non-prescription drugsProgram 2: Health Care and AccessAMR Quantum HarrisNil34,100Undertake market research on community attitudes to GP issuesAustralian General Practice Accreditation Pty Ltd170,000405,000Advise on and establish the administrative process for accrediting General PracticesBlue Moon Research and Planning13,48844,960Undertake qualitative research for the therapeutic group premiums information programBrigham Women's Hospital88,376143,000Undertake a comparative review of methodological approaches between the Quality in Australian Health Care Study (QAHCS) and the Utah/Colorado Medical Practice Study (UCAMPS)Craze Lateral Solutions161/748602,978*Advise on the National Prescribing Service Consultation Process *$602,978.00 includes a $300,000 facilitation payment to divisions of General PracticeCSIRO Telecommunication and Industrial PhysicsNil25,000Develop a framework for the categorisation of ultrasound equipmentDate Analysis APSF23,700358,198Complete and upgrade the Quality in Australian Health Care Database and analyse the data thereinDiagnosis Pty Ltd36,00090,000Advise and represent the Department concerning the establishment/operation of a University Department of Rural Health at Mt IsaErnst & Young30,000120,000Provide consultancy services for the simplified billing trialsHealth Connections Pty Ltd232,000575,000Conduct research into rural medical workforce and training opportunities for rural General PractitionersHuman Capital Alliance56,000167,000Conduct research into the role of Divisions of General Practice in rural workforce issuesJane Elkinton & Associates2,5002,500Assist and advise in the development of NHPA report on injuryMonash University60,000146,700Conduct rural workforce research into models for sustainable General Practice serviceMorey Australia Pty Ltd24,00060,000Advise and represent the Department concerning the establishment/operation of University Department of Rural Health in AustraliaPaull, Ms S9,00018,750Prepare and advise on a review of scientific literature on lung transplantation Phillipa Milne & Associates19,73437,272Provide expert critique of the General Practice Education System for the Review of General Practice TrainingRainbow Hospital Indicators Pty Ltd23,11085,682Develop performance indicators for Phase 2 of National Demonstration Hospitals ProgramThe Wallis Consulting GroupNil88,668Undertake quantitative research for the therapeutic group premiums information programTA Patient Satisfaction29,41847,227Provide advice in relation to the testing mailout survey from Picker Institute questionnaire; comparing the results with the current telephone survey being conducted via the Victorian Patient Satisfaction SurveyTurnbull Porter NovelliNil50,000Provide public relations advice for the therapeutic group premiums information programUniversity of Melbourne150,000849,117Research and develop the National Mental health Schools ProjectUniversity of NewcastleNil311,876Conduct external evaluation of PBAC Submission (Variation to Contract)Wendy Bloom & Associates90,650300,000Conduct research for Review of General Practice Training and the General Practice Strategy Review ($90,650 for RGPT)Program 3: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HealthDevitt, Ms JNil10,000Provide advice on the implementation of the National Indigenous Australians Sexual Health Strategy in the NTHiggins Wood and Associates25,00025,000Provide advice on good practices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health services and education, training programs in a range of rural, remote and urban settings—Stage 2Jumbana Pty Ltd (Mr John Moriaty)25,00030,000Advise on and promote the establishment of the Foundation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Families and Young PeopleKPMG Consulting Pty Ltd33,00033,000Provide advice on the potential cost of the ASMOF AwardKPMG Consulting Pty Ltd16,800380,400Assess and provide advice on Coordinated Care Trial evaluation plans, information systems and the viability of each trialKPMG Consulting Pty Ltd489,6651,399,041Implement the national evaluation of Coordinated Care Trials—collecting reports and data, and analysing the reporting on progressProgram 4: Family and Children's ServicesAustralian Catholic University Ltd30,000110,176Undertake research into parenting needs of families with adolescent childrenBlue Moon Research and Planning Pty Ltd15,97015,970Provide market research on the Commonwealth Children's Services ProgramCommonwealth Research Institute of Australia (CIR)2,0002,000Provide advice on review process on forms design Ecumenical Housing20,54782,190Undertake research into appropriate responses for homeless people whose needs require a high level of complexity of service provisionJackson Wells Communications16,22837,957Develop and refine the communication strategy and related material for the Commonwealth Children's Services ProgramKeys & Young24,64498,575Undertake research into homelessness in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander context and its possible implications for SAAPMacquarie Research Ltd33,740113,740Undertake research into men's role in parentingOrima Research Pty Ltd6,7866,786Undertake market test and provide advice on application forms for reapproval of services for Childcare Assistance & Childcare Rebate purposes.Purdon & Associates7,56818,920Analyse and report on the first round of Good Practice Forums for services funded under the Youth Homelessness Pilot Program Oct-Dec 97Thomson Goodall Associates Pty LtdNil8,900Develop and prepare the SAAP National Plan UpdateProgram 5: Aged and Community CareAllied Health and Community Consulting ServicesNil22,500 plus expensesAssist with the review of the implementation of the Resident Classification ScaleAustralian Government Solicitor/Coudert Brothers2,016290,000Provide legal advice in design and implementation of aged care prudential arrangementsAustralian Healthcare Associates2,439,1102,737,900Develop the Aged Care Structural Reform Training StrategyBrown, Mr N8,0958,095Provide advice as chair of selection panel for the Aged Care Accreditation BoardCentre for International EconomicsNil60,000 plus expensesReview of the implementation of the Resident Classification ScaleDeacons Graham & James21,35121,351Provide Advice re Board of Directors of the Aged Care Standards & Accreditation AgencyEllis & AssociatesNil29,475Develop an aged care user's guideFrank Small & Associates22,50075,000Undertake evaluation research for the Aged Care Structural Reform communication strategyLa Trobe University5,00015,000Develop the design phase of a research study on aged care facility costingsMorgan & Banks46,54346,544Provide advice re General Manager of the Aged Care Standards & Accreditation AgencyNational Ageing Research InstituteNil7,500Consultancy services in relation to a Gerontic Nursing Workforce workshopOakvale Capital Ltd249,942352,000Design and project management of aged care prudential arrangementsPhillips Fox23,34635,000Review aged care prudential arrangements and advise on mechanisms to facilitate building upgradingPlanning and Development20,00063,000Produce a scoping paper on Community Care Classification—identifying possible classifications of HACC Clients and how these might be used to improve service delivery Rosewarne, Mr RNil22,500 plus expensesAssist wit the review of the implementation of the Resident Classification ScaleSocial Equity Consulting GroupNil12,000Develop a Legal GuideProgram 6: Disability ProgramsCSIRO, Telecommunications and Industry Physics1,4821,482Provide advice related to categorisation of hearing devicesCSIRO, Telecommunications & Industry PhysicsNil5,000Provide advice as part of an evaluation committee, evaluating responses received for the supply of hearing devices and associated servicesEgan Cullen DellNil17,122Advise on and provide a framework on Job Evaluation as part of the Workforce Structures ProjectMacquarie University Research Ltd3,8863,886Provide advice as part of a Expert Panel on hearing devicesPaul Cook & Associates4,1404,140Conduct financial analysis of a funded service and advise on optionsPrice Waterhouse28,57032,000Advise on Pricing Principles and Rule ProjectPurchasing AustraliaNil10,000Purchasing advice related to the second stage of establishment of a common use panel of hearing devicesUniversity of Sydney (Dr D Kemp)Nil10,000Advise on and develop a best practise model for work conditioning programs which may be implemented across the networkProgram 7: Corporate Leadership and Management10,85010,850Review financial and operational structure of the Department's expanded Hotline Information ServiceArbiter Pty Ltd14,83250,000Advise on Parliamentary Workflow/Work Management/Records Management Steering Committee (Period May—Sept 1997)Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd126,050140,595Advise on how the Department could best use the Internet as a mechanism to achieve its vision (Period 19/5/97 to 30/7/97)Ernst & Young12,64015,800Undertake a review of the change control process within HFS in a computing environmentKLA Australia20,00020,000Review costing/pricing methodology & strategies for CSDMcAlister, Mr C1,6003,200Provide advice as an independent observer—Audit CommitteeOpticon Australia Pty LtdNil70,000Undertake an assessment of responses to Department Industry assessment for records and workflow management, and advise on issues that may impact on the next phase of projectPrice Waterhouse3,0003,000Review of internal audit structure, plans, working papers and reportsWalter & Turnbull31,78069,650Provide IT audit advice6203(Question No. 2597)25976203Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 4 December 1997:Has a request for additional funding been made by, or on behalf of, the Energy Research and Development Corporation in order to enable it to meet all existing commitments; if so, a) what additional sum was requested and (b) was the request successful; if not, why not.6204Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) $10.371m.(b) Yes.6204(Question No. 2646)26466204Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).6204Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No(2) (a) & (b) Nil(3) Nil6204(Question No. 2652)26526204Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Did he state that approximately 90,000 full-time jobs would be created in energy and energy-intensive projects in Australia before 2003; if so, (a) what are the details of the statement, (b) what is the basis for the projected numbers of jobs, (c) upon what sources and research was the projection based, (d) will he make available the research upon which the projection is based and (e) to what extent is the Government committed to achieving the creation of the jobs.6204Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) At the Countdown to Kyoto Conference in Canberra, 19 August 1997, I stated that:A sizeable proportion of new foreign investment in Australia is destined for our energy and emission-intensive sectors. This is because they are internationally competitive. A recent survey undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates that over the next five years of so, around $68 billion worth of investment is destined for energy and energy-intensive projects. These projects would create about 90,000 permanent full-time jobs:(b) The projection was based on estimates of the permanent full-time employment opportunities to be created, both directly and indirectly, from planned investment in the energy and emission-intensive sector in Australia. The projects included in the survey were:. valued at over $100 million—the survey therefore did not take into account jobs to be created in smaller projects;. likely to produce greenhouse emissions or be dependent on competitive fossil fuel for the international competitiveness; and. under consideration over the next five years or so—and therefore able to be shelved or moved to a location in another country under a stringent Kyoto outcome.The employment figure did not take into account the jobs that would have been created in the construction phase of the projects.(c) The employment figure was based on a survey of State and Territory Governments, industry associations and individual businesses, conducted in May-June 1997 by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on the amount of investment and employment which was under consideration in Australia's energy and emission-intensive sector, including mining, metals manufacturing and transport.(d) The Government released aggregate details of the survey in the September 1997 issues paper, "Australia and Climate Change Negotiations". The survey was conducted on the proviso that no commercially sensitive information about individual projects was released publicly. Consequently, the Government cannot release project-by-project data on planned investment.(e) The Government is fully committed to achieving growth in employment. 6205(Question No. 2705)27056205Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 March 1998:(1) What (a) renovations, (b) restorations and (c) repairs have taken place on the (i) buildings, (ii) grounds, (iii) furniture and (iv) fittings at (A) Kirribilli House and (B) The Lodge since 2 March 1997.(2) Will he detail the (a) cost of each piece of work referred to in part (1), (b) name of the tradesman or company which carried out the work, (c) names of the unsuccessful tradesmen or companies which gave quotes to carry out the same work and (d) sums involved in the unsuccessful quotes; if not, why not.6205Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) From 2 March 1997 to 28 February 1998 expenditure on renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings at Kirribilli House and The Lodge totalled $194,616.18 ($90,335.11 at Kirribilli House and $104,281.07 at The Lodge).By comparison, during the 1994-95 financial year, being the last full financial year of former Prime Minister Keating's term of office, the equivalent expenditure totalled $274,882.31 ($39,219.15 at Kirribilli House and $235,663.16 at The Lodge). My expenditure has been $80,266.13 less than that of my predecessor.(2) (a) and (b) Details of the costs and service providers for works or purchases in excess of $2,000 are available from the relevant Gazettes. Scheduled preventative maintenance and general repairs and maintenance at Kirribilli House and The Lodge are undertaken under contract by P&O Asset Services NSW and ACT respectively. Details of the fixed and estimated costs for these contracts are also available from the relevant Gazettes.From 2 March 1997 to 28 February 1998 my expenditure on works notified in the Gazette has been $173,640.02. By comparison, during the 1994-95 financial year, former Prime Minister Keating's expenditure on works notified in the Gazette was $248,810.40. My expenditure on gazetted works has been $75,170.38 less than that of my predecessor.From 2 March 1997 to 28 February 1998 the following renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings have been undertaken at Kirribilli House in addition to those notified in the Gazette.Work UndertakenProviderCost ($)Outdoor furnitureImpressions1,760.00Repairs to garden equipmentArtarmon Mowers631.00Repairs to household equipmentVarious companies1,826.12Total4,217.12During the 1994-95 financial year, being the last full financial year of former Prime Minister Keating's term of office, the following renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings were undertaken at Kirribilli House in addition to those notified in the Gazette.Work UndertakenProviderCost($)Repairs to police box & fire AlarmAsset Services383.42Minor repairsAsset Services876.90Repair washing machineSpeed Queen213.00Repair ice machineChannon Refrigeration363.00Repair & service locksMosman Locksmiths106.00Supply & install curtains Brian S Peacock Home Decoration1,570.00Supply washing machineAndrew Barton Laundry Equipment1,006.00Supply clothes drierAndrew Barton Laundry Equipment791.00Total5,309.32My expenditure on works at Kirribilli House that were not gazetted has been $1,092.20 less than that of my predecessor.From 2 March 1997 to 28 February 1998 the following renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings have been undertaken at The Lodge in addition to those notified in the Gazette.Work UndertakenProviderCost ($)Supply & install pool pumpMonaro Pools633.04Restore work table and sideboardAntique Conservation75.00Supply solar cover pool blanketCool Pools715.35Repair ovenThe AC&R Company Group1,456.90Supply & install two shower screensMitchell's Glass Works Pty Ltd700.00Supply & install two venetian blindsRiteway Curtains and Blinds312.00Supply washing machineMayner and Cochran1,518.00Supply free standing rotary ironerCapital Home Appliance Centre1,773.00Supply & install coffee machineThe AC&R Company Group1,860.00Supply & install boiling water unitThe AC&R Company Group673.00Supply mattress and base ensembleHarvey Norman1,529.00Repairs to garden equipmentVarious companies2,883.75Repairs to household equipmentVarious companies2,630.00Total16,759.04During the 1994-95 financial year, being the last full financial year of former Prime Minister Keating's term of office, the following renovations, restorations and repairs on the buildings, grounds, furniture and fittings were undertaken at The Lodge in addition to those notified in the Gazette.Work UndertakenProviderCost($)Remove pool stepsCanberra Pools284.00Supply salt cells for the poolCanberra Pools296.00Repaint gatesJoe Gilmayer Pty Ltd598.00Monitor fire alarmACT Emergency Services242.00Painting of section of outer wallAustralian Construction Services900.00Repair to pool pumpKilpatrick Green Pty Ltd278.00Repairs to lawn mowerCanberra Mower Service1,921.40Service tractor Mitchell Lawnmower Centre400.00Replace pool lightsKilpatrick Green Pty Ltd886.00Repair to various furnitureAzzopardi & Hancock750.00Repair native pond pumpKilpatrick Green Pty Ltd643.85Repairs to garden equipmentVarious companies2,779.45Repair locks The Lock Doctor622.00Repairs to household equipmentVarious Companies1,186.70Repairs to plumbing worksKilpatrick Green Pty Ltd1,800.05Replace felt on Billiard tableHeiron & Smith Billiards1,400.00Supply 1 brass lampColefax & Fowler Pty Ltd1,260.90Supply desk & drawersRecon Furniture Sales Pty Ltd556.00Supply mattressForty Winks319.00Supply & install kreepy crawlyMonaro Pools765.00Supply multi vacFyshwick Mower Service1,569.34Repairs to garden lightingVarious companies1,304.90 Total20,762.59My expenditure on works at The Lodge that were not gazetted has been $4,003.55 less than that of my predecessor.(2) (c) and (d) Details of the tradesmen, companies and sums involved in unsuccessful quotes cannot be provided as the information is commercial-in-confidence.6207(Question No. 2734)27346207Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) What total sum has been recovered in respect of over claimed expenses by Members of the Commonwealth Parliament.(2) What sum was paid to the firm which audited the claiming of expenses by Members of the Commonwealth Parliament.(3) Is it a fact that Members of the Commonwealth Parliament will be required to produce receipts to claim daily expenses to which they are entitled.(4) Will the same requirement apply to officers at all levels in the Australian Public Service; if not, why not.6207Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Details of repayments of over claimed travelling allowance for Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Opposition Office holders for the period 1 July to 31 December 1997, and for Senators for the period 15 September to 31 December 1997, are included in the report entitled "Parliamentarians' travel paid by the Department of Finance and Administration July to December 1997" which was tabled in Parliament on 28 May 1998. The total amount recovered from these Parliamentarians in respect of over claimed travelling allowance was $7,010. Details of repayments of over claimed travelling allowance for all other Senators and Members for the period 1 July to 31 December 1997 are included in similar reports prepared by the Chamber Departments and tabled in Parliament on 28 May 1998. Advice of the amounts recovered in respect of those reports should be sought from the Presiding Officers.(2) $17,000 was paid by the Department of Finance and Administration to the firm which audited travelling allowance payments for which the Department was responsible in the period 1 July to 31 December 1997. Auditors were also engaged by the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives to audit travelling allowance payments made by those Departments during the same period. Any questions regarding those audits should be directed to the Presiding Officers.(3) No. However if a member makes a claim for accommodation in a commercial establishment, he or she must provide a receipt or certify that a receipt can be produced if requested. The receipt should be kept for 6 years.(4) Payment of travelling allowance to officers in the Australian Public Service is a matter for individual agencies. The November 1997 ANAO report, "Official Travel by Public Sector Employees", is under consideration by the Government. Recommendation 1.35 of the report is directly related to the issue of reimbursement.6207(Question No. 2774)27746207Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 March 1998:Was the Assistant Treasurer warned that the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal could be the subject of successful constitutional challenge to the exercise of its powers, as occurred in the Bishop decision; if so, what action did the Minister take to prepare for the event.6207Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The Assistant Treasurer was aware of the challenges to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal's jurisdiction in the cases of Neil Wilkinson and Ors v Clerical Administrative and Related Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd, Life Reinsurance of Australasia Limited and Darryl Bishop and Daniel Nathan Brekler & Ors v Leshem (Bishop and Leshem cases). However, it was impossible to predict the effect on the Tribunal's jurisdiction of the outcome of those challenges and therefore not practicable to amend the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (the SRC Act). Two other factors were considered in deciding not to take legislative action prior to the court decisions. Firstly, following advice from Attorney General's Department about the implications of the Brandy decision, the SRC Act had already been amended in 1995 to remove or reduce the risk of constitutional challenge. Secondly, the 1997 Federal Court decision in Briffa v Hay which decided that the SCT exercised administrative rather than judicial power, and affirmed the SCT's jurisdiction to review both discretionary and non-discretionary decisions of trustees.As a result of the Full Federal Court decisions in the Bishop and Leshem cases the Government has applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court.In addition, the Government is exploring options that might be adopted in the short to medium term to ensure superannuation fund members have access to an alternative disputes resolution mechanism.In the meantime, the SCT will continue to respond to inquiries and conciliate on complaints from superannuation fund members.The Government is fully committed to ensuring superannuation fund members continue to have access to an efficient and effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism.6208(Question No. 2806)28066208Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:(1) What mechanisms have been established for the most appropriate processes to be used for regional and local planning in relation to each of the agreements on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health signed between the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments Aboriginal organisations and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.(2) What regional and local plans identifying gaps and opportunities in health service provision have been developed.(3) Will he provide a copy of each plan referred to in part (2).(4) What priorities have been developed to improve health services, including mainstream health services, and environmental health.(5) What actions have been taken in relation to the (a) improvement of access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons to mainstream health and substance misuse services, (b) improvement of public accountability against enforceable written standards of service which are reported upon and (c) development of complaints processes including for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons a process with sufficient authority to ensure appropriate corrective action where necessary.(6) Will he provide copies of the written standards of service referred to in part (5)(b).(7) What actions have the (a) Commonwealth and (b) State and Territory governments taken to improve access to mainstream health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons particularly in relation to the (i) linking of mainstream and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services, (ii) provision of appropriate health professionals to address the needs identified through joint planning processes and (iii) health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners and the employment of appropriate workers in corrective facilities (8) What reviews have the (a) Commonwealth and (b) State and Territory governments undertaken in relation to the issues referred to in part (7) and what were the results of the reviews.(9) What resources did the (a) Commonwealth and (b) State and Territory governments provide to improve the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons in (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1996-97 and (iii) 1997-98.(10) What resources have been allocated through forward estimates by the (a) Commonwealth and (b) State and Territory governments to improve the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons in (i) 1 998-99 and (ii) 1999-2000.(11) What annual reports have the (a) Commonwealth and (b) State and Territory governments provided in relation to their activities under the agreements referred to in part (1).(12) Will he provide copies of the reports referred to in part (11).(13) What are the results of the needs-based planning undertaken to inform funding decisions with regard to new and existing health and health related services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons.(14) Have the processes referred to in part (13) identified a need by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons for (a) dental services, (b) improved access to subsidised pharmaceuticals, (c) eye services, (d) health services which provide access through bulk billing, (e) mental health services, (f) women's health services and (g) communicable disease services.(15) What additional funds have the (a) Commonwealth and (b) State and Territory governments allocated to meet the needs referred to in part (13). (16) What action has been taken to reduce the incidence of domestic violence occurring as a result of substance misuse in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.(17) What progress has been made in relation to model service contracts and the development of (a) outcomes and outputs, (b) operational service principles, (c) processes which ensure the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services and (d) simplified administrative procedures which consolidate reporting and accountability processes.(18) What progress has been made in relation to (a) the development of protocols in relation to the routine collection of data on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, (b) the development of appropriate health outcome indicators to measure progress in the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons, (c) the development of mechanisms to report on the indicators and (d) assisting service providers to deliver high quality services in both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific services and mainstream services.(19) Will he provide copies of the protocols and indicators referred to in paragraphs (18) (a) and (b), respectively.(20) Which State and Territory governments have not signed an agreement with the Commonwealth in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and what reason for not signing has the relevant government provided in each case.6209Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Framework Agreements which have been signed in all States and Territories, commit the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) to put joint planning processes in place. The Agreements also provide for a State Forum be established to undertake the planning and for the implementation of other aspects of the Framework Agreement.The regional planning process is progressing in all States and Territories to varying degrees. A brief summary of progress has been forwarded to Mr Lee.(2) The first set of Aboriginal Health Regional Plans developed in South Australia was launched in Adelaide on 28 November 1997. They include 8 separate regional plans covering the 7 South Australian Health Commission rural and remote regions as well as one for the metropolitan area. They are titled "South Australian Aboriginal Health Regional Plans: the First Step."In the Northern Territory the Commonwealth commissioned the Central Australian Health Planning Study which was completed in 1997. The planning study identified the details of the location, size and mobility of the population of Central Australia. It looked at the current level of primary health care in the region and established priorities and practical solutions to the current barriers which prevent Aboriginal people accessing an adequate level of health care. The majority of those communities identified by the study as not receiving and adequate level of primary health care will acquire additional assistance from the Commonwealth's Remote Communities Initiative.(3) Yes. Both Plans have been forwarded directly to Mr Lee.(4) Each State and Territory Forum establishes its own specific priorities within the Framework Agreement.The South Australian Forum has established a set of statewide priorities to be addressed in all regional plans. Specific priorities relating to improving health services (including mainstream health services) include:. Ensure mainstream hospitals, health units and senior health executives report on their efforts to orientate their services to improve the health status of Aboriginal people including cross cultural training of senior medical staff. This should include in all mainstream Health Service Agreements, the requirement to report on how they work with their local Aboriginal health Services and Aboriginal Hospital Liaison workers. This includes reporting on their use of the 30/O loading under casemix for treating Aboriginal people.. Continue to improve Aboriginal peoples access to mainstream services particularly in the metropolitan area (50% Indigenous population). Also improve statewide access acute hospital care in urban areas.The Central Australian Health Planning Study in the Northern Territory outlined a number of priorities communities where current access to primary health care was less than adequate. There were also a number of issues identified such as zoning of service administration pharmaceutical supply and evacuation procedures which were to be addressed across the region. As noted earlier, the Commonwealth is currently negotiating funding services to several of the remote communities identified as priorities in the area.Other States and Territories have not yet completed this stage of the joint planning. (5) (a) There have been several programs implemented by the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Services (OATSIHS) which have aimed either directly or indirectly to improve access to mainstream health care services. A summary of these initiatives follows.Remote Communities InitiativeThis program has identified 36 remote communities/areas where there was a need to increase the communities access to primary health care services. There is in progress more detailed community level planning for the provision of additional services to 18 of these communities and a planning approach is being considered for the remaining communities. In many communities the approach involves extending community controlled services to meet the needs of more isolated communities while in others the State or Territory government is involved.National Indigenous Australian Sexual Health Strategy (NIASHS)The NIASHS was developed through an extensive consultation process throughout 1996 and launched in March 1997. The aim is to enhance the primary health care service sector in the provision of sexual health services and to build partnerships between all sectors in relation to prevention, treatment care and support, workforce issuesTo date Queensland, the Northern Territory, and New South Wales have successfully negotiated proposals which meet this substantial policy shift. Proposals from another three states are currently under consideration in respect to their ability to meet the National Indigenous Australians' Sexual Health Strategy objectives.Eye healthIn November 1996, the Minister commissioned Professor Hugh Taylor Chair and Head of the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Melbourne and Director of the Centre for Eye Research, Australia, to review eye health in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.In responding to the recommendations of the review the Commonwealth Government is implementing an integrated range of strategies which will significantly improve access to and the delivery of eye health services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.Emotional and Social WellbeingUnder the Commonwealth's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Emotional and Social Well Being (Mental Health) Action Plan a number of initiatives aimed specifically at improving Indigenous emotional and social well being are currently being implemented. These initiatives include the following: - Establishing a network of specialised Regional Centres. There are eleven centres nationally at present and in most sites, they have formed through partnerships between Indigenous health services, training providers, Indigenous university enclaves, and state mental health services.- The Regional Centres will promote good practice, develop education packages (if necessary) and deliver mental health training for Indigenous health workers, provide clinical support (personal and professional) for Indigenous mental health workers, trial new ways of linking and working across sectors, and develop information systems to clarify the level of need in the region.- Developing a range of culturally appropriate mental health care models. Under the Action Plan, the Commonwealth has funded one College based and two University based Indigenous mental health courses. The Commonwealth also funded the development of an Indigenous mental health core curriculum and cross cultural awareness package. All of these course have a strong holistic emphasis and seek to provide recognised, practical and culturally appropriate skills to students.Workforce strategyAt a national level the OATSIHS is developing partnerships with peak vocational education and training (VET) sector bodies to accelerate the education, training and assessing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers in the field. At a regional level, the OATSIHS has developed partnerships with OATSIHS funded health services together with State government education authorities. In Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia, these partnerships have resulted in a number of significant education and training courses and packages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers.The OATSIHS has developed a two pronged approach to the provision of medical specialists. This involves two significant pilot projects in the Top End of Northern Territory and Cape York in Queensland. Both projects will provide a range of specialist services to remote Indigenous communities and will involve education, training and skills transfer to local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers, General Practitioners (GPs) and nurses. Ongoing evaluation of those pilot projects will assist in the refinement of a national strategy specifically aimed at increasing the numbers of specialists working in Indigenous communities, increasing cultural awareness issues and increasing the numbers of Indigenous trainees and specialists. Through the auspices of the GP Strategy Review the OATSIHS is working with key stakeholders to address issues such as; increasing the numbers of GPs working in Indigenous health, infrastructure issues such as surgery space and equipment, ongoing medical education and increasing access to medical networks and allied health support infrastructuresIn addition, the OATSIHS is undertaking a national workforce modelling project which will ascertain the numbers and skills mix required in each of the health professions. The project will provide a comprehensive map of the current workforce and will highlight the gaps and priorities.Coordinated Care trialsCoordinated Care Trials in Aboriginal communities in Tiwi (Northern Territory) and Wilcannia (NSW) have attracted `cashed out' Medical Benefits Scheme and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme funds. The funds are contributions to pools of resources available to local communities, as represented through The Tiwi Health Board and the Far West Ward Aboriginal Health Service (Wilcannia) to purchase health services. The NSW and NT Governments have also contributed funds to the respective pools.Substance MisuseThe OATSIHS has recently distributed copies of the Interim Report of the Review of the Commonwealth's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Substance Misuse Program to all major stakeholders for comment. The final report is expected in May 1998.(5) (b) The OATSIHS has been working with NACCHO to develop a Service Activity Reporting instrument which will establish a measure of the quality of service being provided by the Aboriginal Medical Services. The instrument will also include reciprocal accountability requirements of both the services and the funding body. A final instrument on which services will report against this financial year is currently being finalised and will be available in late June 1 998.There are currently some community controlled services which are looking at the Community Health Accreditation and Standards Project as a mechanism to improve service standards. It has been acknowledged that other systems should be examined to determine what, if any, new service standards might be required to meet the needs of Aboriginal health services.(5) (c) Preliminary discussions within my Department have been held on the development of Service Charters as the basis of a model for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to make formal complaints about services funded by my Depart ment. It is anticipated that this matter, along with the development of the Service Activity Reporting and the national protocols to protect privacy and confidentiality in using health data, will form the basis of negotiations with NACCHO and other stakeholders in 1998.(6) No. The document does not exist.(7) (a) (i) The Commonwealth has worked on improving linkages to mainstream services in the approaches outlined in question 5. As noted in other answers these initiatives include State and Territory governments.(7) (a) (ii) The provision of an appropriate workforce has been described in the answer to question 5.(7) (a) (iii) A number of the Services funded under the Commonwealth's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Substance Misuse Programs provide outreach service to Indigenous prisoners. In addition, under the National Drug Strategy, the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council in South Australia have been funded to develop a resource and training strategy entitled: Education and Prevention Training Strategies in Prisons for Aboriginal Substance Misuse.The new Service Activity Reporting instrument currently being finalised by the OATSIHS and NACCHO will seek information on the resources available and those required to service prisoners.(7) (b) (i ii & iii) To gather and develop a description of every initiative which has been undertaken by State and Territory governments in relation to the agreements would require resources currently unavailable.(8) (a) The Commonwealth has undertaken reviews referred to in the answer to question 5.(8) (b) State and Territory Government initiatives are too numerous and are beyond current resources to gather and describe.(9) (a & b) (i) The Commonwealth commissioned a consortium of researchers in November 1996 to develop the methodology to identify baseline data on the allocation and expenditure of funds on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, and to develop a mechanism for regularly monitoring and reporting such data. This consortium comprised of representatives from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.This has been a major project and the first attempt to collect nationally consistent information in this area. The consortium derived total expenditures on services to Indigenous people by State, Territory and Commonwealth governments: total and per person in 1995-1996. This information is expected to be released shortly after stakeholders have been able to examine the final report.(9) (a & b) (ii & iii) The data for these years is not available.(10) (a) (i & ii) The Commonwealth provided $139.571m (plus up to $11.503m for coordinated care trials) to improve the health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people via forward estimates in 1998-99 and $141.854m (plus up to $11.503m for coordinated care trials) in 1999-2000.This represents allocations specifically for Aboriginal health services and substance misuse services through the Aboriginal Health Program (Program 3) only. It does not include allocations from mainstream areas of my Department which may be earmarked for specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander initiatives or for mainstream programs which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people access. These mainstream allocations have also increased over the past 2 years.(10) (b) State and Territory figures are not available at this point.(11) States and Territories will report on progress with the Framework Agreements to the Australian Health Ministers Conference annually. Each State and Territory were to report on progress with the Agreements at the meeting in late 1997 but the meeting was cancelled(12) Yes, when they become available.(13) The regional planning process has and will continue to assist my Department to make informed funding decisions with regard to new and existing health related services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons. To date the 36 remote Communities have been identified through a needs based planning approach.(14) South Australia is the most advanced State or Territory in relation to finalising regional plans. The priorities it identifies do include some the issues noted in the question. A copy of the regional plan has been forwarded to Mr Lee.Other States and Territories are yet to finalise regional plans.(15) (a) The Commonwealth provided an additional $24m over 4 years in the 1996-97 budget to improve access to primary health care services in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.(15) (b) The resources required provide an accurate answer to this question are beyond the current capacity to provide.(16) In responding to this question, it is important to note that the incidence of domestic violence in Indigenous communities is extremely difficult to estimate, just as it is in the wider Australian com munity. Within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities the particular importance of the family, of kinship structures and relationships increases further the difficulty in acknowledging and reporting family and sexual assault. Importantly, substance misuse is only one of the factors that contribute to domestic and family violence. Economic and social factors such as unemployment lack of adequate housing, minimised access to services and institutionalised racism combine to increase pressures towards both incidence and denial of violenceThe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has significant role in addressing family and domestic violence and my Department has been negotiating with ATSIC on the development of a project entitled "Services to Victims of Domestic Violence." Negotiations are continuing.Substance Misuse ReviewNote a response on access to substance misuse services is covered in question 5.(17) Preliminary work has been undertaken on establishing model service contracts however there are many legal and intersectoral issues to overcome. (17) (a) The Victorian Forum has been trialing a health outcomes approach to its planning and service delivery. This has been piloted in three regions and involves the community sector establishing a contract with mainstream health services to ensure appropriate services are provided and access is improved. The results will be important to assessing the capacity to include outputs and outcomes in model service contracts.(17) (b) The progress on development of operational service principles has largely been addressed in the answer to question 5. The new Service Activity Reporting instrument being jointly developed by OATSIHS and NACCHO is looking at the quality of health care service provided along with some operational issues, such as the level of community participation in selection processes and service management.(17) (c) Direct community consultation has also been undertaken in the development of the majority of OATSIHS programs. There is also Indigenous representation on other high level bodies for example the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Council which provides advice to the me as Minister for Health and Family Services.(17) (d) The OATSIHS is addressing the provisions of its own funding Agreement with community controlled health organisations before pursuing further development of simplified administrative and accountability procedures. However, the Service Activity Reporting requirements now required by the OATSIHS will assist the development of simplified accountability mechanisms. (18) (a) The New South Wales Aboriginal Health Resources Cooperative Pty Ltd (AHRC) was contracted by my Department to develop protocols to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health data is collected, stored and analysed and presented in ways that are culturally sensitive, comply with all legal and ethical requirements, and contribute optimally to promoting the better health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.My Department has received the draft final report and is currently holding discussions with NACCHO about the best means for progressing the matter.(18) (b & c) In August 1997, Federal, State and Territory governments endorsed a set of national performance indicators and targets that all jurisdictions will report against annually. These demonstrate public accountability by monitoring governments' collective efforts to improve the health of, and services for, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people throughout Australia.(18) (d) As noted in answers to other questions there environmental impact statement still information being gathered on service standards and quality assurance programs which can be used as a starting point for further discussion on best practice.The OATSIHA is also undertaking a series of evidence-based systematic reviews to underpin the development of clinical care guidelines for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services. Clinical care guidelines are particularly relevant to Aboriginal health due to the complexity of health issues, the rapid turnover of staff and the isolated conditions in which many health care professionals work. Guidelines are most successful where local clinicians have direct involvement in their development, dissemination and implementation. Therefore, the OATSIHS is setting up and supporting a process ;through which clinical care guidelines can be developed at the local or regional level by health services, based on clear evidence provided through the systematic reviews but allowing for appropriateness of the guidelines to the local circumstances and service personnel. An evaluation strategy to assess this method of introduction of clinical care guidelines will be implemented in conjunction with the National Health and Medical Research Council.(19) (a) Yes. However the data protocols are not yet available.(19) (b) Yes. A copy of the national Performance Indicators have been forwarded to Mr Lee.(2) All States and Territories have signed an agreement with the Commonwealth in relation Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.6213(Question No. 2829)28296213McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 31 March 1998:(1) What mechanisms exist under the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to direct parties negotiating towards an enterprise agreement or Australian workplace agreement to conduct their bargaining in good faith.(2) Has his Department compared Australia's bargaining framework with those existing in other countries; if so, (a) in which other countries does the relevant industrial tribunal have the power to direct or order parties to negotiate in good faith and (b) what is the nature of the power in each case.6213Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Industrial Relations Commission may exercise conciliation powers to assist parties in connection with negotiations for a certified agreement—see s.170NA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and parties may be directed to attend conferences—see s.119. Where parties are unable to reach agreement about a particular matter, they may request the Commission to conduct a hearing and make recommendations about the matter. Such recommendations are binding on the parties—see s.111AA. An agreement must be approved by or made with a valid majority of employees, and the terms of any agreement put to employees to consider approving or making must be explained to them—see ss170LJ and 170LK.The Commission's powers in connection with Australian workplace agreements relate only to the approval of agreements, variation agreements and termination of agreements—the Commission has no power to make orders in connection with the negotiation of AWAs. However, it is relevant to note a party to an AWA is required to recognise the other party's bargaining agent [s.170VK(2)], an AWA requires the genuine consent of the employee concerned [s.170VPA] and the employer must have explained the effect of the agreement and provided specified information to the employee [ss.170VPA and 170VO]Given that a key object of the Act is to give employers and employees at the workplace or enterprise level greater direct responsibility for matters affecting their relationship, these provisions are more appropriate than provision of the previous Act that gave the Commission specific power to make orders to require parties to bargain in good faith.Under the Coalition's Workplace Relations Act 1996 it is open to the approving authority for workplace agreements, (whether the Office of the Employment Advocate or, in certain cirumstances, the AIRC) to consider issues of good faith in deciding whether genuine consent existed at the time agreements were entered into.(2) In 1992 the (then) Department of Industrial Relations conducted a research project which examined workplace bargaining arrangements in a number of overseas countries. The countries studied, in addition to Australia, were New Zealand, USA, Canada, Japan, the UK, Germany and Sweden. The research findings were published in January 1993 as Industrial Relations Research Monograph No 2, Workplace Bargaining in the International Context.(a) Of the countries examined, only the USA, Canada and Japan were found to have provisions relating to bargaining in good faith.(b) The main findings of the research with respect to the requirement for good faith bargaining in these three countries wereUSAThe National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) may order a party to bargain in good faith over what are characterised as `mandatory issues', which include wages, hours and other terms of employment. However certain requirements must be met before such orders can be made.CanadaUnder the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act 1998 private sector unions seeking recognition from employers can approach a labour relations board to gain certification rights. If successful, the union becomes the exclusive representative for employees within the relevant bargaining unit, and employers are under a legal obligation to bargain in good faith with that union.JapanThe Japanese constitution guarantees workers the right to organise and employers refusing to bargain in good faith can be held by the Labour Relations Commissions to have committed an `unfair labour practice'. Employers can however refuse to bargain with unions if there are `fair and reasonable reasons' for refusing.A paper has also recently been prepared for the Labour Ministers' Council on bargaining arrangements with respect to individual contracts in Australia and New Zealand. The paper, Individual Contracting—Australian and New Zealand Experiences, which is to be published shortly, is too large to be reproduced. A copy will be available from the House of Representatives table office once the paper is published.6214(Question No. 2859)28596214Brown, Bob, MPMr Robert Brown5A5CharltonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:(1) Is Rio Tinto (a) a transnational company jointly based in the UK and Australia and (b) the world's largest private mining company.(2) Has his attention been drawn to claims that Rio Tinto (a) has earned a reputation for conflict with local communities, trade unions, human rights and environmental groups where it is engaged in mining and (b) is being sued in the UK for compensation for cancer allegedly resulting from working conditions at its uranium operations in Namibia.(3) Has his attention also been drawn to criticism of Rio Tinto by Amnesty International and the Australian arm of Oxfam for its treatment of indigenous people in Indonesia.(4) Is it a fact that Rio Tinto (a) is attempting to de-unionise its operations in Australia and (b) has made awards to workers at an Australian coal mine for producing coal without union involvement.(5) Did Rio Tinto provide specialist staff to assist the Government to draft industrial legislation; if so, was the legislation subsequently found by the International Labour Organisation Committee of Experts to breach international labour law regarding the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively.(6) What measures will the Government implement to ensure that Rio Tinto operates in Australia (a) with full respect for human rights and labour rights and (b) to high standards for occupational health and safety and environmental protection.6214Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes.(b) I cannot confirm whether Rio Tinto holds such a position. I am advised, however, that Rio Tinto describes itself as `one of the world's leading mining and resources groups'.(2) (a) I am aware that claims of this nature have been made against Rio Tinto by various unions, particularly the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). However, I am advised that Rio Tinto has strongly denied them.(b) No.(3) I am aware of general media coverage reporting criticism of Rio Tinto's human rights record. However, I am not aware of any specific criticisms by Amnesty International or the Australian arm of Oxfam. I have been recently informed that Amnesty International has expressed its regret to Rio Tinto that it may have been used to support a union industrial and political campaign against the mining group.I understand that Amnesty International has asked that its name not be used on any further campaign material or public statements that imply Amnesty supports a campaign against Rio Tinto.(4) (a) This is a matter that should be raised directly with Rio Tinto itself. However, I can confirm that Rio Tinto has publicly denied that it is attempting to de-unionise its operations in Australia.Rio Tinto has indicated it is pursuing its right to negotiate the reform of work practices that inhibit Australia's ability to compete internationally.(b) I am aware of media reports that suggest such an event took place.(5) Mr Michael Angwin, Chief Adviser, Employee Relations, with CRA Limited (now Rio Tinto), was a member of the Task Force that advised the Government in 1996 on the development of the workplace relations legislation. Mr Angwin was not involved in the drafting of the legislation—it was drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and reflects the intention of the Parliament.The International Labour Organisation's Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) has made some observations on Australia's application of Convention No 98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining). The observations were made in the context of the CEACR's examination of reports submitted by International Labour Organisation (ILO) member States in accordance with Article 22 of the ILO Constitution about the application of Convention No 98.The Government disagrees with the Committee's comments about the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (`the Act'). The Committee's comments on aspects of the Act indicate that it appears to have overlooked a number of key provisions. It also failed to examine the provisions in their proper context and misunderstood the relationship between the various provisions of the Commonwealth legislation, the application of the legislation by Australian Courts and Tribunals, and the relationship with relevant State legislation and the common law.In examining Australia's report on compliance with ILO Convention No.98, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949, the Committee had before it representations made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). The Government considers the ACTU's claims to be without foundation, and responded to them in a submission to the Committee of Experts which supplemented the response already given to the usual questionnaire on Australia's compliance with the Convention. However, the Committee dealt with the matter without taking into account the Government's supplementary submission. The Committee's report to the International Labour Conference specifically acknowledges that fact.Australia will respond to the Committee of Experts' observation in accordance with the ILO's reporting requirements.(6) (a) and (b) The Government expects all companies operating in Australia, whether Australian owned or multinational, to comply with Australia's laws, including those relating to workplace relations, occupational health and safety and the environment.6215(Question No. 2860)28606215Brown, Bob, MPMr Robert Brown5A5CharltonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 6 April 1998:(1) Was his attention drawn to the first meeting of trade unions with membership in mines and plant owned by Rio Tinto conducted by the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mines and General Workers' Unions in Johannesburg, South Africa, between 7 and 9 February 1998.(2) Is he able to say whether the meeting was convened in response to growing concern about what are seen as serious abuses against the rights of workers and against accepted principles of trade unionism.(3) Did he send a message to the meeting expressing any commitment on the Government's part to protect and enhance the right of trade unions to represent employees; if not, will he advise the Construction, Forestry and Mining Employees Union that the Government will assist it against attacks by Rio Tinto on well established principles covering trade union rights and industrial relations in Australia.6215Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I was aware of general media reports on the meeting.(2) I am not in a position to explain why the meeting was convened.(3) I did not send a message to the meeting.The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) will be aware of the rights of employers, employees and their organisations under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act). The Government's workplace relations policy, given effect by the Act, has reformed federal industrial relations arrangements. The Act provides a fair framework within which employers, employees and, where appropriate, unions can work together to achieve ongoing and beneficial change at the workplace and enterprise levels.One of the fundamental principles underpinning the Government's policy is freedom of association, providing genuine choice to belong or not to belong to a union or employer association. The freedom of association provisions of the Act ensure, among other things, that employers and employees have this right. The provisions protect them from discrimination and victimisation on the ground of their membership or non-membership of such bodies.The Government expects all employers, employees and unions to comply with all provisions of the Act and other relevant laws.6216(Question No. 2923)29236216Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent programs and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97(b) 1997-98; and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6216Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade(a)-(c) No recurrent program or grant funding has been provided to the federal electorate of Oxley during the financial years specified by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.AustradeGrants paid under the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) Scheme to the federal electorate of Oxley are as follows: Financial Number of Amount Year Recipients 1996-97 6 $319,193 1997-98 5 $292,397 (as at 20 May 1998) 1998-99 (see note below)Claims made under the EMDG Scheme relate to expenditure incurred in the previous financial year. Some applications received in 1997-98 are yet to be assessed. These applications relate to the 199697 financial year. Applications received in 1998-99 that relate to the 1997-98 financial year are received between 1 July 1998 and30 November 1998.AusAID(a)-(c) No recurrent program or grant funding has been provided to the federal electorate of Oxley during the financial years specified by AusAID.The electorate does, however, benefit from commercial contracts awarded to Australian firms involved in the delivery of Australia's overseas aid program. I am aware, for example, of a $10 million contract awarded to an Ipswich firm to supply mechanical and electrical equipment for a major water supply and sanitation project in Vietnam.6216(Question No. 2924)29246216Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent programs and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97(b) 1997-98; and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6216Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade(a)-(c) No recurrent program or grant funding has been provided to the federal electorate of Oxley during the financial years specified by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.AustradeGrants paid under the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) Scheme to the federal electorate of Oxley are as follows: Financial Number of Amount Year Recipients 1996-97 6 $319,193 1997-98 5 $292,397 (as at 20 May 1998) 1998-99 (see note below)Claims made under the EMDG Scheme relate to expenditure incurred in the previous financial year. Some applications received in 1997-98 are yet to be assessed. These applications relate to the 1996/97 financial year. Applications received in 1998-99 that relate to the 1997-98 financial year are received between 1 July 1998 and30 November 1998.AusAID(a)-(c) No recurrent program or grant funding has been provided to the federal electorate of Oxley during the financial years specified by AusAID.The electorate does, however, benefit from commercial contracts awarded to Australian firms involved in the delivery of Australia's overseas aid program. I am aware, for example, of a $10 million contract awarded to an Ipswich firm to supply mechanical and electrical equipment for a major water supply and sanitation project in Vietnam.6217(Question No. 2926)29266217Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6217Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:NATIONAL LANDCARE PROGRAM/NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST GRANTSProject Title1996/971997/98Bremer River Enhancement Project$46,000.00$50,000.00National Landcare Program/Natural Heritage Trust grants for 1998/99 have not yet been determined. Regional and State wide Natural Heritage Trust projects, which may have an impact on Oxley have been excluded as precise expenditure in the electorate cannot be determined.FARM BUSINESS BRANCHProject Title1996/971997/981998/99Rural Counselling Program$160 000.00$125 000.00NilRural Communities ProgramNilNil$100 000.00Although funding is allocated under the DPIE portfolio for the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS), Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payment (ECRP) and Farm Family Restart Scheme (FFRS), DPIE is not directly involved in the processing of individual applications for these programs. All decisions regarding an individual's eligibility are made by State Authorities in the case of the RAS and Centrelink for the ECRP under nationally applicable guidelines.When applications from farmers are assessed under these programs, information regarding the electorate in which the farmer resides is not collected and such information could not be obtained by DPIE.6218(Question No. 2927)29276218Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6218Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—The Minister for the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(a)—(c) Following are funding/expenditure details for the Environment portfolio in the electoral division of Oxley:Program/GrantAmount 1996-97Amount 1997-98 Up to 12 May 1998Amount Budgeted for Remainder of 1997-98Amount Budgeted 1998-99$$$$Meteorology—expenditure primarily concerned with maintaining ongoing operations at the Weather Service Office at Amberley Air Force Base. Year to year variations in expenditure are related to equipment replacement283,000251,00015,000326,000 Waterwatch Program—Oxley Creed Environment CentreNil15,000NilSubject to current Natural Heritage Trust funding roundOne Billion Trees1,750NANANASave the Bush5,400NANANABushcareNil8,200NilSubject to current Natural Heritage Trust funding roundThe Electorate of Oxley falls within the South East Queensland forest region which is being assessed for the purposes of establishing a regional forest agreement between the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments.Funding for the South East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) has been provided on a project basis, with completion to occur during 1998-99. While funding cannot be specifically identified for the electorate of Oxley, as expenditure relates to the region in general, the following details are provided for the region.Project Funding1996-97 Expenditure1997-98 Expenditure to End of AprilProject Balance to be spend by 30/6/99)$$$$RFA—Environment2,301,0001,138,000410,000753,000RFA—Heritage302,000100,00011,000191,000QLD RFA Total2,603,0001,238,000421,000944,0006220(Question No. 2933)29336220Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6220Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of Health and Family Services produces an annual set of Electoral Profiles. These detail for each federal electorate the Department's services, and their capital and recurrent funding, where such information is available. Regional information is not available for services (and funding) which: are delivered nationally (for example, health education and promotion); do not relate to specific locations (for example, medical research); or are made to central bodies which then allocate the funds regionally.In response to your request for details of specific years:(a) details for 1996-97 are included in the April 1997 Electorate Profiles, which are available in the Parliamentary Library;(b) details for 1997-98 will be in the April 1998 Electorate Profiles, to be released in June 1998 (these will be available in the Parliamentaty Library shortly thereafter); and(c) the portfolio does not budget expenditure by federal electorate, and is therefore unable to provide data on funding budgeted for the electorate of Oxley for 1998-99.6220(Question No. 2946)29466220Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Was the CES office at 312 Keilor Road, Niddrie, Vic., closed on 20, 22, 24 and 27 April 1998 because of computer failure; if so, (a) what was the nature of the fault and (b) what alternative arrange ments were available to persons needing the services of the office.6220Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No, the CES office at Niddrie was not closed due to computer failure on the specified dates. There was no computer fault on the dates mentioned.6220(Question No. 2975)29756220Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) Have the (a) office and (b) official residence of the Australian Consul-General in New York, Mr Michael Baume, undergone renovations, repairs or improvements since 23 June 1997; if so, in each case, (i) what work has been undertaken, (ii) was the work put out to tender, (iii) what was the cost of the work and (iv) was the cost met by the Commonwealth.(2) What sum in Australian dollars has been spent on maintenance work in the (a) office and (b) official residence of the Australian Consul-General in New York since Mr Baume's tenure in the position began.(3) What sum has Mr Baume spent on official commonwealth-funded travel since 23 June 1997.(4) What proportion of the sum referred to in part (3) was spent on (a) travel and (b) accommodation.(5) On each occasion Mr Baume claimed a Commonwealth allowance for his travel, (a) to where did he travel and (b) what was the reason for his travel.(6) What sum has Mr Baume's partner spent on official Commonwealth-funded travel since 23 June 1997.(7) What proportion of the sum referred to in part (6) was spent on (a) travel and (b) accommodation.(8) On each occasion Mr Baume's partner claimed a Commonwealth allowance for her travel, (a) to where did she travel and (b) what was the reason for her travel.(9) Has a current staff member at the Australian Consul-General's office in New York been found guilty of a criminal offence; if so, in each case (a) what is his or her name, (b) what is his or her current position at the Consul-General's office, (c) for what crime was he or she found guilty and (d) on what date was he or she convicted.(10) Has a current staff member working at the office of the Australian Consul-General in New York been (a) sacked, (b) officially reprimanded or (c) penalised in another form for acting in a sexually harassing manner during his or her working careers; if so, in each case, (i) what is his or her name, (ii) what is his or her current position at the Consul General's office, (iii) when did the incident occur, (iv) for whom was he or she working when the incident occurred and (v) what were the circumstances of the incident.(11) Has a current staff member at the Australian Consul-General's office in New York had a complaint against them for acting in a sexually harassing manner during their working careers; if so, (a) what is his or her name, (b) what is his or her current position at the Consul General's office, (c) when did the incident occur, (d) for whom was he or she working when the incident occurred and (e) what were the circumstances of the incident.6221Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) As part of a larger project that saw the Australian Consulate General and the Australian Mission to the United Nations co-locate in the same premises at 150 East 42nd Street New York in May 1998 , the Consul General, Michael Baume was provided with a new office in April 1998. Using construction costs of approximately USD 4.3 million less the landlord contribution of approximately USD 2.1 million both the Consulate General and the UN Mission were fitted out at a net cost of USD 2.2 million. Extrapolating out the net square footage allowance the approximate cost of fitting out the Consul General's new office was USD 32,150. The cost of new case goods furniture yet to be supplied from Australia is AUD11, 500 but has not been included in the above costing. This project was competitively bid.Offsetting the fitout costs was an amount of approximately USD 340,000 which was a net saving against the existing rent commitment of the Consulate General and, which was achieved by moving the Consulate temporarily to rent free premises in early January 1998. The move was effected to allow the sublessee of old Consulate General premises at the Rockefeller Center an opportunity to commence construction earlier than had originally been anticipated. The total projected savings for the new premises over the term of the new lease against the old rent liabilities is conservatively put at USD 9.0 million.(b) A total of USD 6,833.12 has been spent on repairs and maintenance at the Consul General's residence since 23 June 1997. The lion's share of this amount (USD 4,015) related to the replacement of old steel external window frames that were leaking. Three quotes were obtained for the window work. Of the rest USD 1,841.50 related to repairs and servicing of airconditioners, the balance being spent on incidental maintenance.(2) Office: USD 32,150 (estimated cost in Question 1) or AUD 41 219.52Residence: USD 9407.12, AUD 12 060.87(3) Mr Baume has spent USD 4, 155.83 on travel related expenses within his Consular district since 23 June 1997. A recent visit to Australia for mid-term consultations involved travel costs of USD 13, 513.55 which is funded in Australia.(4) Airfares within the consular district within the period amounted to USD 1,711 while T/A and accommodation costs were USD 2,444.83. Airfares for Mr and Mrs Baume for mid-term consultations are USD 10,898.20 while accommodation costs for Mr Baume, T/A and incidentals for both Mr and Mrs Baume are USD 1985.35.(5) There have been five official visits within the consular area within the period:On 20/8/97 Mr Baume undertook a trip to Maine and Rhode Island via Boston to meet State Governors to discuss possible trade missions.On 3/9/97 Mr Baume flew to Washington to attend the annual Consul General's meeting and for a round of official consultations. He returned to New York on 7/9/97.On 9/10/97 Mr Baume went to Montpellier, Vermont to meet the Governor.From 7/11/97 to 11/11/97 Mr Baume visited San Juan, Peurto Rico to meet the Governor for trade talks and for familiarisation. On this occasion Mr Baume was accompanied by his spouse. Mr Baume paid for Mrs Baume's ticket.On 20/1/98 Mr Baume attended a meeting at Penn State University in Pennsylvania.(6) USD 5832.24(7) (a) USD 5832.24 (includes airfares for official travel to Australia and associated Travel Allowance) (b) nil.(8) (a) Australia (b) Mid-term consultations visit.(9) I have been advised by the Consulate-General in New York that, as far as it is aware, no current staff member has been found guilty of a criminal offence.(10) I have been advised by the Consulate-General in New York that, as far as it is aware, no current staff member has been sacked, officially reprimanded or penalised in another form for acting in a sexually harassing manner during his or her working careers.(11) I do not believe the privacy of the individuals concerned would be best served by releas ing details of the persons involved or of the circumstances of the incident.6222(Question No. 2991)29916222Smith, Tony, MPMr Tony SmithSK6DicksonIND00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1998:(1) What sum did the Child Support Agency (a) collect and (b) distribute in each year for which data are available.(2) What is the annual cost of the Child Support Agency on a full cost accruals accounting basis.6222Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) The following table indicates the amounts collected by the Child Support Agency for each year the data was available:Year$000's1996-97406 127.21995-96355 348.41994-95294 892.81993-94279 000.01992-93199 000.01991-92137 200.01990-9193 000.01989-9044 700.01988-8915 000.0(1) (b) The Child Support Agency does not distribute the monies collected—that role is undertaken by Centrelink.(2) The Child Support Agency will not use an accrual accounting system until the 1998-99 financial year. The total cost of the Child Support Agency for the financial year 1996-97 was $160,578,191.6222(Question No. 3003)30036222Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1998:Further to the table in part (3) of the answer to question No. 2699 (Hansard , 12 May 1998, page 3055), how many of the 340,327 card holders for 1996-97 were recipients of a disability pension at the rate of 100 per cent or more.6222Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Of the 340 327 Repatriation Health Card holders at June 1997, 49 349 were receiving a disability pension at 100% of the general rate or higher. 6222(Question No. 3016)30166222Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1998:(1) Is it a fact that the report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on the treatment of persons claiming refugee status was distributed to the Press Gallery press boxes on 8 May 1998 but embargoed until 11 May when it was released by the Commission.(2) When did he receive a copy of the report.(3) Is it a breach of a convention or statute for the report to be delivered to the press before the Attorney-General.6222Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) Yes. The report was released to the Press Gallery on 8 May 1998 before it had been provided to me for tabling in Parliament due to a number of errors in its handling from the time that it left the premises of the Commission's printers.(2) I received a copy of the report officially from the Commission on 11 May 1998.(3) Section 46 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 requires me to table the report within 15 sittings days of its receipt by me and I tabled the report on 12 May 1998. While the report's premature release to the Press Gallery was a breach of convention, I have been advised by the Commission that it was not intentional.6223(Question No. 3018)30186223Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1998:(1) Was a meeting of experts held in Vienna on 11-13 May 1998 to consider the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Hague, 1954).(2) Who attended the meeting on behalf of Australia.(3) What was the outcome of the meeting.6223Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Mr Peter Scott, Third Secretary at the Australian Embassy and Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Vienna attended the meeting.(3) Although there was no progress on the negotiation of the text, the meeting was significant in that it involved substantive discussions on the rationale of the revision process and its legal basis. The most significant outcome is that the secretariat, assisted by key delegations, will now prepare a draft "optional protocol", drawing on outcomes from this meeting as well as previous work. It is hoped that this draft will be a tighter and more focussed text and will provide a firmer basis for revision of the Convention than the "Lauswolt Document" which was originally drafted to address concerns with the Convention.6223(Question No. 3020)30206223Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1998:(1) What is the unemployment rate in the local government areas of (a) Cessnock, (b) Maitland, (c) Singleton, (d) Muswellbrook, (e) Scone, (f) Murrurundi, (g) Quirindi, (h) Merriwa and (i) Tamworth.(2) What presence will (a) Employment National, (b) Mission Australia, (c) Drake, (d) the Salvation Army, (e) Northumberland Network and (f) the Samaritans have in the local government areas of (i) Cessnock, (ii) Maitland, (iii) Singleton, (iv) Muswellbrook, (v) Scone, (vi) Murrurundi, (vii) Quirindi, (viii) Merriwa and (ix) Tamworth.(3) Did the (a) Northumberland Network, (b) Upper Hunter Community Training and (c) Samaritans Foundation fail to secure Flex 1, Flex 2 or Flex 3 contracts; if so, on what basis.6223Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)—Unemployment Rate Estimates, Local Government Areas, March Quarter 1998(a) Cessnock (C)14.1%(b) Maitland (C)11.3 %(c) Singleton (A)5.9 %(d) Muswellbrook (A)9.2 %(e) Scone (A)7.1 %(f) Murrurundi (A)10.5 %(g) Quirindi (A)6.3 %(h) Merriwa (A)8.1 %(i) Tamworth (C)7.7%Source: Small Area Labour Markets, AustraliaThese data are derived from Department of Social Security (DSS) statistics of persons in receipt of unemployment benefits, and Australian Bureau of Statistics population and labour market statistics. The estimation system used produces small area labour market estimates that reflect the regional disparities of the DSS data, while being consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics Labour Force Survey estimates. All data are presented in original terms and have not been adjusted to take account of seasonal or other variations. Accordingly, they can be subject to considerable volatility from quarter to quarter and should be used with caution.(2) (a) Employment National will provide Job Matching and Intensive Assistance services at Cessnock, Maitland, Muswellbrook and Tamworth as well as Job Search Assistance at Tamworth. They are also providing a mobile Outreach service to Quirindi.(b) Mission Australia will provide Job Matching and Intensive Assistance services at Maitland, Muswellbrook and Singleton and will also cover Scone, Murrurundi, Cessnock and Merriwa within their service areas.(c) Drake Employment Services will provide Job Matching and Intensive Assistance Services at Maitland and will also cover Cessnock and Singleton within the service area.(d) The Salvation Army will provide Job Matching, Job Search Assistance and Intensive Assistance at Maitland and Job Matching and Intensive Assistance at Merriwa and will also cover Cessnock within their service areas.(e) Northumberland Network is not a Job Network Member.(f) Samaritans is not a Job Network Member.(3) It is not possible to provide particular details of any tenderer's bid or reasons for selection or non selection of particular tenderers as these details are Commercial in Confidence.6224(Question No. 3025)30256224Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 June 1998:How many Child Support Agency clients resided in postcode areas (a) 2605, (b) 2606, (c) 2607, (d) 2611, (e) 2900, (f) 2901, (g) 2902, (h) 2903, (i) 2904, (j) 2905 and (k) 2906 on (i) 1 January 1998, (ii) 1 January 1997 and (iii) 1 January 1996.6224Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to honourable member's question:Until recently, the Child Support Agency (CSA) did not retain information which could be extracted from the computer system relating to previous addresses when a change of address was notified. Therefore, the information requested as at 1 January 1996 and 1 January 1997 is unavailable.The following table represents CSA clients (both payers and payees) as at 1 January 1998: Post code Clients 2605 398 2606 486 2607 513 2611 1197 2900 102 2901 67 2902 1103 2903 682 2904 646 2905 2018 2906 901 Total 81136224(Question No. 3032)30326224Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 1504 (Hansard , 2 June 1997, page 4650), what are the (a) names, (b) positions and (c) qualifications of the persons who will represent Australia at the meeting of Governmental Experts on the Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage to be held at UNESCO headquarters, Paris, from 29 June to 2 July 1998.6224Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) and (b) The Australian delegation to the meeting of Governmental Experts on the Draft Copnvention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, from 29 June to 2 July, will be:Mr Peter Shannon, Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO, former Head of the Law of the Sea Unit and a former Deputy Legal Adviser in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mr David Walker, Alternate Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO; Ms Carolyn Irving, Third Secretary and member of the Permanent Delegation of Australia to UNESCO.(c) Mr Shannon has a Bachelor of Laws/Bachelor of Arts degree. Mr Walker and Ms Irving have Bachelor of Arts degrees.6224(Question No. 3033)30336224Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1998:(1) Did the Commonwealth allocate $2.6 million through the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) for capital works at the Institute for Aboriginal Development in Alice Springs; if so, what are the details.(2) Has the Institute for Aboriginal Development received other Commonwealth funding for infrastructure improvements.(3) In allocating the $2.6 million, did the ANTA Ministerial Council indicate its support for the work done and the results achieved by the Institute for Aboriginal Development.(4) Did the Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody specifically recommend support for institutions such as the Institute for Aboriginal Development.(5) What steps has he taken to ensure that the ANTA capital works funding will be spent as soon as possible.6225Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Under the Vocational Education and Training Act 1992, introduced by the previous Labor Government, the Commonwealth provides funding to the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) for the infrastructure programme including, from 1996-1998, $15 million to help address the infrastructure needs of Indigenous vocational education and training providers. ANTA is responsible for the allocation of funds. ANTA has allocated, but not yet paid, $2.6 million to the Northern Territory Government for capital works at the Institute for Aboriginal Development.(2) No.(3) The ANTA Ministerial Council agrees the indicative allocation of infrastructure funds between States and Territories and the amount to be allocated to Skill Centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander facilities. ANTA administers the programme, including settling with States and Territories individual projects.(4) The Report recommended, among other things, that "Governments support Aboriginal community controlled adult education institutions and other institutions which provide a programme of courses which have the support of the Aboriginal community". (Recommendation 298a)(5) The Institute for Aboriginal Development has been encouraged to negotiate with the Northern Territory Government a resolution to the issue of the appropriate site for the capital works. 6225(Question No. 3048)30486225McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 22 June 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 2777 (Hansard , 14 May 1998, page 3522), in which he advised that since the answer to question No. 1871 (Hansard , 23 September 1997, page 8257) was given, there have been no formal complaints made by industrial associations to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) concerning Australian industrial law and practice, is it a fact that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions lodged a complaint with the ILO in Geneva on 7 May 1998 alleging some 9 breaches of Australia's treaty obligations under ILO conventions; if so, will he (a) correct the record by advising of the nature of the complaint and (b) provide a copy of the Government's response to the complaint.6225Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Since the answer to question No. 2777 was given, the Government has received advice from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) that a complaint has been lodged with the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) about aspects of the waterfront dispute. The complaint was lodged on 7 May 1998 and the Government received formal advice of the complaint from the ILO on 25 May 1998.(a) The complaint concerns alleged breaches of ILO Convention No. 87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 and Convention No. 98, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949.(b) Receipt of the ILO's letter and the copy of the complaint was acknowledged on 2 June 1998. The Government also advised the ILO that the ICFTU's claims are completely rejected and foreshadowed a detailed response to be provided in time for the Committee's consideration at its next meeting (November 1998).The response will be set out in the Committee's report on the complaint. It is not the practice of Australian governments to publish a response to a complaint to the Committee before the Committee has dealt with the matter.6225(Question No. 3054)30546225Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 22 June 1998:(1) Does he support Commonwealth financing of the proposed redevelopment of Campbelltown sports ground for the benefit of the Western Suburbs Rugby League Football Club and other sporting organisations in the Macarthur district.(2) Will the Government match the financial contributions to the project made by the NSW Government and Campbelltown City Council.(3) What efforts has he made to secure Commonwealth funding of this project from the Centenary of Federation fund.(4) Did he support the recent use of the Centenary of Federation fund to help finance the redevelopment of the Gosford sports ground for the benefit of the North Sydney Rugby League Football Club; if so, what are the details.6226Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:As Member for Macarthur, I wrote to the Prime Minister on 20 April in relation to a proposal for redevelopment of a regional sporting complex that would include an upgrade of the Campbelltown Sports Stadium. I supported the proposal as I felt it would be of considerable social and economic benefit to the South West area of Sydney. On 29 June I supported a submission by the Campbelltown City Council to Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, for funding under the Federation Cultural and Heritage programme.The issue of matching financial contributions to projects is one for Government consideration. There are numerous projects of merit lodged for consideration.As I have already indicated, I have written to the Prime Minister in support of the project. I will continue to actively and strongly highlight the merits of the project.I support projects that will provide considerable social and economic benefit to the community. On 30 May 1998, the Government announced inclusion of the redevelopment of Grahame Park, Gosford to a regional recreational complex as a project that would receive assistance under the Federation Fund.6226(Question No. 3071)30716226Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 1998:(1) What information is available on the uses of nicotinic acid as a possible treatment to assist recovery from past alcoholism.(2) Have nicotinic acid tablets recently been removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme list for veterans; if so, why.6226Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Nicotinic acid is currently not regarded as a useful treatment for any aspect of past alcoholism. The USPDI 1998 states that nicotinic acid has not been proven effective in the treatment of alcohol dependence.There are many treatments for past alcoholism currently available. At present, benzodiazepines such as diazepam are the drugs of choice to assist in the control of withdrawal symptoms. Other treatments include the use of disulfiram, maintenance of fluid balance, and large doses of vitamin C and B-complex vitamins, particularly thiamine. Although nicotinic acid is a B-group vitamin (B3), its inclusion in a vitamin B-rich complex as part of therapy has no significance other than to replenish the patient's depleted stores of the vitamin. Alcoholism will commonly deplete the body of vitamin C and B-group vitamins, especially thiamine (B1).(2) Nicotinic acid 250mg tablets remain currently listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Eligible Veterans are entitled to receive all PBS-listed drugs at the concessional rate.On 1 August 1990, two strengths of nicotinic acid tablets (25mg and 50mg) were removed from the PBS. This delisting was due to lack of evidence for the efficacy of low doses of nicotinic acid in the treatment of hyperlipidaemia. It is to be noted that the major use of nicotinic acid is in the treatment of hyperlipidaemia, but may also be used as a vasodilator, or as a supplement in vitamin B3 deficiency.QUESTIONS ON NOTICEThe following answers to questions were circulated after the rising of the House of Representatives on 15 July 1998 and before the prorogation of the Parliament on 31 August 1998:6227(Question No. 2671)26716227Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:Has the Commonwealth funded the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture; if so, (a) under what category was the funding provided, (b) what tendering process was followed, (c) how many organisations applied for funding, (d) did the Foundation receive additional funding for the purchase of major capital items such as vehicles; if so, under which funding round, (e) for what period has the funding been allocated under the service agreement between him and the Foundation, (f) what were the Foundation's client outcomes in 1996-97, (g) were the outcomes considered in the tendering process and (h) does the Foundation receive recurrent funding; if so, for how many positions.6227Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The following is a supplementary answer to the answer previously supplied to the honourable member (Hansard 1 April 1998, page 2332):(a) In addition to funds provided under the Community Settlement Services Scheme (worker based) category, payment was made to the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc (VFST) through the Asylum Seeker Assistance (ASA) Scheme. The ASA Scheme is administered by the Australian Red Cross Society (ARCS) under an Agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia. Monies were forwarded to the VFST by ARCS during 1997-98 under two separate Agreements:. from July 1997- April 1998 under the Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the ARCS in relation to the provision of a Grant for the ASA Scheme for 1995-96, which was extended until 30 April 1998; and,. from May—June 1998 under the recently signed Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the ARCS in relation to the administration of the ASA Scheme for 1997-99.(b) No tendering process was followed. The VFST is a sub-contractor under the ASA Agree ment between the Commonwealth of Australia and the ARCS.(c) Not applicable.(d) No.(e) The funding has been allocated for the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 under the two separate ASA Agreements as detailed at (a) above.(f) The VFST was not funded in 1996-97 under the ASA Agreement. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs funding of the VFST during that period is detailed in the response provided in Hansard 1 April 1998 page 2332.(g) Not applicable.(h) See answer to (e). Payment is based on the number of clients referred by the Australian Red Cross.6227(Question No. 2742)27426227Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an offer by MBF to BHP coal employees in Central Queensland for a special cut-rate health insurance cover which is promoted as being underwritten by MBF.(2) Is it a fact that (a) MBF is reinsured with the Health Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund and (b) the reinsurance was to a total of $15.6 million for the 1997 September quarter; if so, is the scheme referred to in part (1) being subsidised by that reinsurance.(3) Does the use of reinsurance subsidisation place an unfair impost on funds with stable or increasing membership.(4) Does the reduction in membership and increased fees for larger health funds penalise smaller health funds through the reinsurance system.(5) Has the reinsurance subsidy system been scrutinised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; if not, why not.6227Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware that MBF is offering employer sponsored private health insurance to BHP employees.(2) (a) Yes, as are all registered private health insurance funds.(b) The amount was in fact $15.5 million. No, this is not subsidising the offer to BHP.(3) No.(4) No.(5) No. It was subjected to scrutiny by the Industry Commission in Report 57 released on 28 February 1997.6228(Question No. 2757)27576228McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan5I4CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 11 March 1998:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is the hiring of labour to clients (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(2) In what sections of the department, agency, authority or company were the persons referred to in part (1) employed.(3) What are the names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm.(10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(11) What projected labour requirement will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities or companies, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility from (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.6228Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) How many persons have worked in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility under a contract for services entered into with a firm whose sole or predominant business is the hiring of labour to clients (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.(a) 267 persons; and (b) 283 persons.(2) The following sections of the department employed the people referred to in question (1):Higher Education Division; International, Equity, Youth and Students Division; Operations and Performance Division; Schools Division; National Board of Employment, Education and Training; Systems Division; Queensland: various Student Assistance Centres and offices for Labour Market Programs; Western Australia: Area/State Offices and various Student Assistance Centres; Employment and Purchasing Division; Employment National; New South Wales: Area Offices; Analysis and Evaluation Division; Human Resources Division.(3) The names of the labour-hire firms referred to in part (1) which provided services are:(a) in 1996-97Area within PortfolioFirm/s usedHigher Education DivisionOmega Personnel, Green and Green Group.Operations and Performance DivisionKey People Personnel P/L, Andersen, Axis, Computer People, Eurolink, IBM, Imageword, MC Computing, Parity People, Paxus, Praxa Ltd, Price Waterhouse, Quasar Professionals, SAIC, Stratagem, Texas Instruments, Warildi, Wizard.International, Equity, Youth and Students DivisionEquus People Pty Ltd (Career People),Drake International, Morgan and Banks, Management Services Pty Ltd.QueenslandADIA Centacom/Adecco, Atens Professional Services, Drake Personnel, CBC Staff Selections, Townsville Personnel Pty Ltd.Western AustraliaTrott, Casey & Associates, Key People.Systems DivisionAndersen, Answerz, Aspect Computing, Axis Computing, Candle Computer Service, Cisco, Computer People, CPIC, Daedalus, Ferntree, Glendar Consulting, HDS, Imageword, MC Computing, Microsoft, Parity People, Paxus, Praxa Ltd, Price Waterhouse, Southern Cross, Stratagem, The Software Group, TSG Australia, Wizard.New South Wales Drake Overload, The Personnel Department.Analysis and Evaluation DivisionKey People Personnel Pty Ltd, Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd, Wizard Personnel and Office Services.Human Resources DivisionLibrary Locums Pty Ltd.(b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998Area within PortfolioFirm/s usedHigher Education DivisionOmega Personnel, Green and Green Group, Western Staff Services.Operations and Performance DivisionKey People Personnel P/L, Andersen, Axis, Candle Computer, CCA Software, Computer People, CP Resourcing, Drake, Eurolink, Key People, MC Computing, Parity People, Paxus, Praxa Ltd, Price Waterhouse, Quasar Professionals, Southern Cross Computing, Stirling Software, Stratagem, Walter and Turnbull, Warildi, Wizard.Employment NationalPhoenix Contracting Pty Ltd.International, Equity, Youth and Students DivisionEquus People Pty Ltd (Career People), Morgan and Banks Management Services Pty Ltd, Drake International.Schools DivisionCommercial Computer Centre.National Board of Employment, Education and TrainingAdecco.QueenslandTownsville Personnel Pty Ltd.Western AustraliaTrott, Casey & Associates. Systems DivisionAndersen, Answerz, Aspect Computing, Aust Communications, Axis Computing, Brio Technology, Candle Computer Service, Cisco, Computer People, Corporate Consulting, CP Resourcing, CPIC, DMR Consulting, Eurolink, Ferntree, Glendar Consulting, HDS, MC Computing, Parity People, Paxus, Praxa Ltd, Southern Cross, Stratagem, Wizard.Employment and Purchasing DivisionKey People Personnel, All Staff Australia Pty Ltd, Wizard Information Services.New South WalesDrake Overload, The Personnel Department.Analysis and Evaluation DivisionKey People Personnel Pty Ltd.Human Resources DivisionLibrary Locums Pty Ltd.(4) How were the labour-hire firms selected.Higher Education DivisionNational Office of Overseas Skills Recognition: the initial contractual arrangements with Omega Personnel were for a small number of short term contracts. These contracts were awarded after three (3) written quotes were obtained. In 1995 a long term relationship was established with Omega Personnel to avoid delays and costs relating to training new contractors. Higher Education Research Branch: Green and Green and Omega Personnel were both selected through public tender after eight (8) tenders were received. The following year, Green and Green and Western Staff Services were selected through select tender where ten (10) agencies were approached.Operations and Performance DivisionKey People Personnel Pty Ltd was appointed under a Common Use Arrangement with the former Department of Administrative Services for the provision of data entry bureau services to APS departments located in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The remainder of the firms used by Operations and Performance Division were appointed under Common Use Arrangements administered by the former Department of Administrative Services, followed by a Request for Quote process by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Employment NationalPhoenix Contracting Pty Ltd was approached as a firm known for their industry knowledge and expertise and for their ability to provide staff at very short notice.International, Equity, Youth and Students DivisionPolicy, Research and Analysis Section: requested quotes from four (4) labour-hire firms. International Communications and Marketing Section: all potential external service providers in the ACT were approached. A panel was established of those providers who expressed an interest from which contract staff could be drawn.Schools DivisionThe company was appointed under a Common Use Arrangement with the Department.National Board of Employment, Education and TrainingRequested quotes from three (3) labour-hire firms. QueenslandSouthern Queensland: The firm was chosen through standard public tender processes. Cairns: Requested quotes from three (3) labour-hire firms. Townsville: Request for Expressions of Interest sent to three (3) providers in the Townsville area. Townsville Labour Market Programs: Requested quotes from four (4) labour-hire firms.Western AustraliaState and Area Offices: The firm was chosen through a public tender process managed by Purchasing Australia. The contract was extended in November 1996 on advice from Purchasing Australia. Student Assistance Centres: Key People was appointed under a Common Use Arrangement initiated by Youth, Students and Social Policy Division (or its predecessor) in National Office.Systems DivisionThe firms were appointed under DAS Common Use Arrangement PE68—Supply of IT Services.Employment and Purchasing DivisionWizard Information Services was selected through Systems Division following a select tender process (29 tenders were received). Key People Personnel and All Staff Australia Pty Ltd: quotes were requested from nine (9) firms.New South WalesDrake Overload and the Personnel Department were approached as firms known for their ability to provide staff with specialised skills at extremely short notice.Analysis and Evaluation DivisionKey People Personnel Pty Ltd were appointed under a Common Use Arrangement administered by the former Department of Administrative Services. Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd: Requested quotes from six (6) firms and Wizard Personnel and Office Services: requested a quote from only one (1) firm due to the value of the contract.Human Resources DivisionLibrary Locums Pty Ltd was appointed under a Common Use Arrangement administered by the former Department of Administrative Services.(5) Will the Minister provide a copy of the tender documents in each case where a labour-hire firm was selected by public tender.Higher Education DivisionFor the labour-hire firms which were selected through public tender processes, the Minister will provide Request for Tender documents should they be requested.QueenslandFor the labour-hire firms which were selected through public tender processes, the Minister will provide Request for Tender documents should they be requested.Western AustraliaThe tender process was managed by Purchasing Australia. Employment and Purchasing DivisionFor the labour-hire firms which were selected through public tender processes, the Minister will provide Request for Tender documents should they be requested.(6) Will the Minister provide a copy of the terms of reference for the selection of labour-hire firms.The `Terms of Reference' included in the public tender documents issued by the Department will be provided should they be requested.(7) Who comprised the selection panel for successful tenders.Higher Education DivisionThe panel comprised representatives from the area who were users of the services.QueenslandSouthern Queensland: The panel comprised representatives from the Student Assistance Centres—either the Manager or their representative.Western AustraliaThe tender process was managed by Purchasing Australia.Employment and Purchasing DivisionThe Systems Contract Management Team managed the Wizard Information Services Contract.(8) What commission was payable by each department, agency, authority or company to each labour-hire firm for each person contracted for labour.The Department considers that it would be inappropriate to allocate the resources necessary to answer this question as it would require contacting all contractors to seek their agreement to public release of this information.(9) What total sum (a) is owed and (b) was paid to each labour-hire firm.The Department considers that it would be inappropriate to allocate the resources necessary to answer this question as it would require contacting all contractors to seek their agreement to public release of this information.(10) What total sum was paid to labour-hire firms in total (a) in 1996-97 and (b) between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998.In 1996-97between 1 July 1997 and 28 February 1998$11,122,097$7,323,836(11) What projected labour requirement will be met by labour-hire firms in the departments, agencies, Commonwealth authorities or companies, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility from (a) February to June 1998 and (b) July 1998 to June 1999.The Department does not have projections of use of labour-hire firms for the remainder of the year and for subsequent financial years. It is expected that current usage patterns are likely to continue.(12) How many government employees have been replaced through labour provided by labour-hire firms in each department, agency, Commonwealth authority and company, including government business enterprises, for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility.Labour-hire firms have been contracted only where requisite technical skills are unavailable within the organisation or to handle seasonal or fluctuating workloads.6232(Question No. 2794)27946232Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 25 March 1998:(1) Other than news and sport, what are the 20 ABC programs with the highest television audience ratings.(2) How many of the programs referred to in part (1) originated in the UK or Ireland.(3) What effect have budget cuts had on the ABC's capacity to make film or feature television programs.6232Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) A list of the top 20 television programs for the year-to-date (28 December 1997 to 14 March 1998) is attached.(2) 12 of the 20 most popular programs in this period originated in the UK or Ireland.(3) In each year the ABC reviews its planned programs to decide if they will proceed. In any given year a number of programs may be cancelled or deferred. In 1997/98 the following programs planned for production were cancelled or deferred. These include:cancellation of a planned film review seriescancellation of series on Australian film-makerscancellation of a planned comedy co-productiona reduction in independently produced documentaries from 35 to 28a reduction in the number of mini-series from four to tworeduction in the funds available for licence fees/investment in independentlyproduced mini-seriesreduction in the number of drama series planned for Sunday evening transmission from two to one.TOP 30 PROGRAMS EXCLUDING NEWS & SPORTYEAR-TO-DATE (28/12/97—14/3/98)TOTAL PEOPLE—FIVE CAPITAL CITIES(SYDNEY, MELBOURNE, BRISBANE, ADELAIDE & PERTH)AVERAGE AUDIENCE `000sProgramDay of Week'000s1. The BillSat14232. Edinburgh Military TattooThu12893. Full Circle With Michael PalinSun12514. Vicar of DibleyMon12315. The BillTue11956. Pie In The SkySat11276. BallykissangelSun11278. Nature WorldSun10649. McCallumWed99410. SpikeSat91911. 7.30 ReportTue87012. 7.30 ReportMon84213. Coltranes Planes & AutomobilesMon82914. 7.30 ReportWed82615. Good News WeekFri81516. WildscreenWed81317. 7.30 ReportThu79618 7.30 ReportFri76719. AristocracySat76120. HyperscienceThu753Source: A.C. Nielsen (Australia) Pty Ltd, Copyright6233(Question No. 2811)28116233Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 26 March 1998:Has he, his staff or his Department approached shippers asking them to use the services of P&C Stevedores; if so, (a) who was approached, (b) when were they approached and (c) what was their response. 6233Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:This question concerns matters relevant to current proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Maritime Union of Australia. While those proceedings remain on foot, canvassing these matters outside the Court's processes could prejudice the impartial adjudication of the matter and the rights of the parties to the proceedings. 6234(Question No. 2824)28246234Cobb, Michael, MPMr CobbMF4ParkesNP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 30 March 1998:(1) Will the Minister provide a list of all towns in New South Wales with a population of at least 1000 persons and no mobile phone coverage.(2) What is the approximate percentage of towns in New South Wales which have (a) mobile, (b) analogue only, (c) digital only and (d) analogue and digital telephone coverage.6234Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) On the basis of information provided by Telstra, Optus and Vodafone, the following towns in New South Wales with populations of at least 1000 persons currently do not have mobile phone coverage:Boorowa; Brewarrina; Condobolin; Coolamon; Hillston; Kandos; Lake Cargelligo; Peak Hill; Tumbarumba; Walcha.(2) The three mobile carriers advise that their information systems are unable to provide information in the precise form of the question asked by the honourable member. Telstra has advised, however, that its GSM (digital) service is available in 221 of 243 (91%) of towns greater than 1000 persons and its AMPS (analogue) service is available in 219 of 243 (90%) of such towns. The Optus and Vodafone digital coverage is approximately 92% and 61% respectively.The recently released report by the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) of its investigation of AMPS regional coverage provides further information on the differences between existing AMPS and GSM coverage.6234(Question No. 2907)29076234Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) On what occasions, on what dates and at which locations has he met with Mr Chris Corrigan of Patrick Stevedores between 2 March 1996 and the date of answering this question.(2) Is he able to say whether Mr Corrigan as Chairman of Australian Stevedores Ltd proposed to a board meeting in mid-1994 that balance sheet provisions and assets be transferred from the company's Darling Harbour operations to a shelf company in the expectation that the Darling Harbour operations would be run into liquidation so that funds would not be available to pay out creditors including employees' entitlements on termination.(3) Were copies of an ACIL report prepared at the expense of the Commonwealth provided to Mr Corrigan.6234Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:This question concerns matters relevant to current proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Maritime Union of Australia. While those proceedings remain on foot, canvassing these matters outside the Court's processes could prejudice the impartial adjudication of the matter and the rights of the parties to the proceedings.6234(Question No. 2909)29096234Morris, Peter, MPMr Peter MorrisHI4ShortlandALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:Has the Government implemented the major recommendation of the Plane Safe inquiry of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure that major deficiencies detected by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in general aviation charter aircraft be published each month commencing March 1996; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will the information be made public.6234Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Implementation of all the recommendations of the Plane Safe inquiry remains a priority of the Government.(a)&(b) The monthly publication of monthly serious deficiency reports is being actively considered by the Government in consultation with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). However, a number of substantial issues have arisen which have precluded the publication of reports which would provide meaningful advice to the public.In addition to definitional and timing issues, CASA has advised that the unrefined publication of data currently available would be inappropriate, potentially misleading and present to operators adverse barriers of a commercial nature. In addition, there are significant legal complexities, including natural justice considerations with regard to operators that are named or identified in a report.Taking these factors into account, the Government is still strongly committed to implementing the intent of the recommendation, and is of the view that forgoing the provision to the public of information of at least a similar nature is not acceptable. Accordingly, I have asked that a revised, more representative proposal be prepared by CASA as a matter of priority which fully addresses its obligations with respect to this matter.The CASA Board has advised me of its full support for initiatives that will provide the travelling public with a better understanding of aviation risks. It is also seeking to implement arrangements whereby common standards would apply to an aircraft used for passenger operations irrespective of whether they are charter or regular public transport (RPT) operations.6235(Question No. 2911)29116235McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 8 April 1998:(1) Have Airservices Australia considered variations to Mode 4 of the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport in particular using both of the parallel runways for landing and take-offs.(2) Would a variation to Mode 4 enable greater use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) particularly involving large aircraft.(3) Will Airservices Australia implement variations to Mode 4 to increase the use of SODPROPS.6235Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10 - The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) Yes. Mode 4 involves aircraft landing to the north on the main north-south runway and taking off to the south from the new parallel runway. A variation to Mode 4 which has now been adopted involves a small number of additional aircraft taking off to the north from the main north-south runway but no consideration has been given to using both runways for arrivals.(2) Yes, but see (1) above.(3) Procedures to increase the use of Simultaneous Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) came into effect at Sydney Airport on 10 April 1998.6235(Question No. 2916)29166235Cobb, Michael, MPMr CobbMF4ParkesNP10 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will he provide details of all privatisations conducted by the federal Government including (a) the name of each entity, (b) the percentage of each entity sold, (c) the Ministers responsible for each sale, (d) the date of each privatisation, (e) the purchasers in each case and (f) the returns raised from the sale of each entity and in total.6235Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:NB: The response in the table below is based on those sales conducted by the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing and its predecessor organisations since the election of the present Government in March 1996.(a) Name(b) % Sold(c) * Minister Responsible(d) Date Sold(e) Purchaser(f) Sale Proceeds $mCommonwealth Bank Secondary Public Share Offer and share buy back.100 (Note 1)TreasurerJuly 1996Public Share Offer5,100Commonwealth Funds Management (CFM) Ltd and Total Risk Management Pty Ltd (subsidiary of CFM)100Finance and AdministrationDecember 1996Commonwealth Bank Towers Perrin Forster and Crosby Inc62.34Avalon Airport Geelong Limited (AAG)100DefenceJanuary 1997Foxerco Pty Ltd.1.5 (plus annual airfield lease payments)Lease of Melbourne Airport100Transport and Regional DevelopmentMay 1997Australian Pacific Airports Corporation1,307Lease of Brisbane Airport100Transport and Regional DevelopmentMay 1997Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd)1,387Lease of Perth Airport100Transport and Regional DevelopmentMay 1997Airstralia Development Group643 DASFLEET100Administrative ServicesSeptember 1997Macquarie Fleet Leasing Pty Limited.408Australian National Railways Corporation (AN):Transport and Regional DevelopmentAN's South Australian intrastate freight and maintenance100October 1997Genesee & Wyoming Inc (now Australia Southern Railroad)57.4AN's interstate passenger business100October 1997Great Southern Railway16AN's Tasmanian freight business100November 1997Australian Transport Network22AIDC Ltd100Industry, Science and TechnologySeptember 1997Consortium comprising Babcock & Brown and UBS Australia Ltd (a subsidiary of Union Bank of Switzerland)155 plus defeasance of $3,200m of Commonwealth guaranteed debtDepartment of Administrative Service Business Units:Administrative Services30Asset Services100September 1997P&O Asset Services Pty Limited;Works Australia100August 1997Gutteridge Haskins Davey Pty LtdDAS Interiors100September 1997Interiors Australia Pty Limited (Note 2)DAS Centre for Environmental Management100October 1997DASCEM Holdings Pty Limited (Note 2)DAS Distribution100September 1997DAS Operations Pty Limited (Note 3)Australian Operational Support Services100August 1997Kilpatrick Green Pty LtdAustralian Property Group100October 1997Knight Frank Price Waterhouse Property Managers Pty LtdTelstra Corporation Public Share Offerone thirdCommunication, the Information Economy and the ArtsNovember 1997Public Share Offer14,300Housing Loans Insurance Corporation100TreasurerDecember 1997GE Capital Services Australia7.49Macleod Repatriation Hospital site100Veterans AffairsFebruary 1998Victorian Government1.75Australian Multimedia Enterprise Ltd100Communication, the Information Economy and the ArtsApril 1998Allen & Buckeridge Pty Ltd.29.3Lease of Adelaide and Parafield (SA) Airports100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Adelaide Airport Limited, Parafield Airport Limited363.5Lease of Archerfield Airport (QLD)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Archerfield Airport Corporation3.1Lease of Canberra Airport (ACT)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Capital Airports Group66.5Lease of Coolangatta Airport (QLD)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Queensland Airport Limited103.6Lease of Darwin, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek Airports (NT)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Airport Development Group110.15 Lease of Hobart Airport (TAS)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Hobart International Airports Corporation Ltd35.9Lease of Jandakot Airport (WA)Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Jandakot Airport Holdings6.7Lease of Launceston Airport (TAS)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Australian Pacific Airports Corporation17.2Lease of Moorabbin Airport (VIC)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Metropolitan Airport Consortium8.2Lease of Townsville and Mount Isa Airports (QLD)100Transport and Regional DevelopmentApril 1998Australian Airport Pty Ltd15.9*—(c) indicates the Minister in whose portfolio the asset belonged prior to sale. The Minister for Finance and Administration is responsible for the sale in each case.Note 1: Sale was 100% of the then remaining Commonwealth equity, which was 51% of the equity in the Bank.Note 2: Employee owned company.Note 3: 50 % employee owned company.6237(Question No. 2934)29346237Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6237Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable Member's question is as follows:(a) Nil.(b) Nil.(c) Nil.6237(Question No. 2935)29356237Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6237Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The answer to the honourable member's question at Attachment A contains information on actual and target expenditure for the Department by program. It needs to be noted that the expenditure of funds is not generally recorded by electorate. A description on what basis the information has been provided is at the bottom of each table.ATTACHMENT APORTFOLIO EXPENDITURE FOR THE ELECTORATE OF OXLEY1996 $'000s1997 $'000s1998 Estimated Expenditure $'000s1999 Allocation $'000sFootnotesProgram 1—SCHOOLS Sub Program 1.1 General Assistance1.1.1 General Recurrent Program - Government SchoolsA - Non-Government Schools13,56615,19915,400B1.1.2 Capital Grants Program - Government Schools1,494 - Non-Government Schools73063397 (C)13 (C)CA— No information is held on general recurrent funding to individual government schools.B— General Recurrent final payment figures are not yet available. Information is derived from postcodes.C— Represents only money currently earmarked for this electorate and does not reflect total funding which may be provided to the electorate of Oxley. Information is derived from postcodes.1996-97 $'0001997-98 YTD $'000* 1997-98 Estimated Expenditure $'0001998-99 Allocation $'000sFootnotesProgram 2—HIGHER EDUCATIONDSub Program 2.1 Higher Education System2.1.2 Capital Grants Program (Capital Development Pool for universities)1,0471,2982,5975,868* Please note this refers to the total estimated expenditure and not the remaining balance after year-to-date figures have been subtracted from the total.D— Higher Education program allocations are made on a calendar year basis. The figures have been adjusted to conform to the financial year requirements of the table. Higher education operating grant funding is also provided to universities. However it is provided as a block grant from which the universities allocate funds to their various campuses and faculties. The new Ipswich campus of the University of Queensland is in the electorate of Oxley. We are unable to provide information about the University of Queensland's operating grant which applies to the component campus.1996-97 $'000s*1997-98 YTD $'000s1997-98 Estimated Expenditure $'000s1998-99 Allocation $'000sFootnotesProgram 3—VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAININGSub Program 3.1 Industry Training and Support3.1.4 Workplace English Language and Literacy732056Not availableE3.1.5 Jobs Pathway ProgramNot available408020Sub Program 3.2 Australian National Training Authority (ANTA)3.2.3 Australian Student Traineeship Foundation (ASTF)1224242Not availableF* Please note this refers to the total estimated expenditure and not the remaining balance after year-to-date figures have been subtracted from the total. The Department is unable to provide reliable, accurate data on funding for apprenticeships and traineeships at the postcode/electorate level. Funds are disbursed to States, Territories, Group Training Australia or ANTA to allocate within program guidelines. A break down by electorate within a State or Territory is not available.E— 1998-99 allocation will not be finalised until Nov-Dec 1998.F— The tender round for funding ASTF projects in 1998-99 is not finalised.1996-97 $'000s1997-98 $'000s (as at 1 June)1997-88 Estimated Expenditure $'000s*1998-99 Allocation $'000sFootnotesProgram 4—EMPLOYMENTSub Program 4.2 Employment Participation4.2.1 Employer Incentives6,7009501,0604.2.2 Training for Employment1,1708709404.2.3 Job Seeker Preparation and Support7502402504.2.4 Work for the Dole090110Sub Program 4.3 Employer and Industry Servicing1702030Sub Program 4.4 Aboriginal Employment and Training Assistance420290330* Funds are not allocated at electorate level and therefore anticipated LMP expenditure for 1998-99 are not available.1996-97 $'000s1997-98 YTD $'000s1997-98 Estimated $'000s1998-99 Allocation $'000sFootnotesProgram 5—STUDENT AND YOUTH SUPPORTSub Program 5.1 Education Assistance and Income SupportG5.1.1 AUSTUDY8,9938,0759,110Not availableH,I5.1.2 ABSTUDY8568288819125.1.3 Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC)353045515.1.4 AUSTUDY/ABSTUDY Loan Supplement—AUSTUDY1,7571,6031,770Not availableI,J- ABSTUDY188178199209Sub Program 5.2 Youth Policy and Support5.2.4 Green Corps (Young Australians for the Environment)KRound 3—Ipswich—Purga Wetlands Reserve117Round 5—Ipswich—1 Mihi Creek—Bremer River117G— Education Assistance and Income Support schemes are provided on an academic (calendar) year.H— Expenditure on these student assistance schemes is dependent upon applicant eligibility, and in this sense is demand-driven. There is no set allocation for each scheme. Expenditure is not normally calculated at an electoral level. Estimates above are derived by applying postcode weightings supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to students' home postcodes.I— The AUSTUDY scheme will be replaced on 1 July 1998 by the Youth Allowance and the Austudy payment for older students, age 25 and above. The Youth Allowance expenditure and Austudy payment is the responsibility of the Social Security portfolio.J— The Loan Supplement scheme includes AUSTUDY and ABSTUDY components. These are shown separately, since the AUSTUDY component will cease on 1 July 1998 with the introduction of the Youth Allowance.K— Allocations in forward years are determined by project proposals.6240(Question No. 2937)29376240Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HansonBK6OxleyIND00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Will the Minister provide details of recurrent funding and grants allocated in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99 by the Minister's department or any agency for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility for the electoral division of Oxley.6240Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Only a limited number of specific programs administered by my Department can be disaggregated to this electoral division. In other cases, the division receives a proportion of funding allocations made to State and Local Governments.(a) in 1996-97: (1) under the Federal Road Safety Black Spot Program, the division received three projects at an estimated cost of $31,000; (2) under Federal Roads Programs, the division received $2.2m for lowering and rehabilitation of the pavement at Dinmore, as well as a proportion of the Queensland allocation of $63.75m for maintenance and $14.36m for minor works; (3) under the Local Government Financial Assistance Grants, the division received a proportion of the $30,569,575 general purpose grants and local roads grants made to Brisbane City, Ipswich City and Beaudesert Shire; and (4) under the Regional Development Program, the Ipswich Regional Development Corporation received a proportion of: the $235,000 paid to the Corporation over two years (1996-97 and 1997-98) for administrative expenses, the $99,365 paid to the Corporation over three years (1995-96 to 1997-98) for an evaluation of telecommunication infrastructure in Ipswich and surrounds, and the $74,400 paid to the Corporation over two years (1995-96 and 1996-97) for a study of the processes needed to set up a Development Fund for regional infrastructure projects.(b) in 1997-98: (1) under the Federal Road Safety Black Spot Program, the division received one project at an estimated cost of $25,000; (2) under Federal Roads Programs, the division received a proportion of the Queensland allocation of $60.56m for maintenance and $13.64m for minor works; (3) under the Local Government Financial Assistance Grants, the division received a proportion of the $29,876,760 general purpose grants and local roads grants made to Brisbane City, Ipswich City and Beaudesert Shire; and (4) under the Regional Development Program, the Ipswich Regional Development Corporation received a proportion of: the $235,000 paid to the Corporation over two years (1996-97 and 1997-98) for administrative expenses, and the $99,365 paid to the Corporation over three years (1995-96 to 1997-98) for an evaluation of telecommunication infrastructure in Ipswich and surrounds.(c) in 1998-99: (1) under Federal Roads Programs, the division will receive a proportion of the Queensland allocation of $57.38m for maintenance and $12.92m for minor works;At this stage no projects under the Federal Road Safety Black Spot Program have been approved for funding in Queensland in 1998-99.The allocation of Local Government grants for 1998-99 has yet to be determined by the Queensland Grants Commission.6240(Question No. 2940)29406240McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Is it a fact that to qualify for exemption from unfair dismissal laws contained in the Workplace Relations Act a small business needs to (a) employ fewer than 15 persons, (b) be a respondent to a federal award and (c) be a constitutional corporation; if so, (a) how many small businesses meet those criteria and (b) what percentage of the total number of employers do they represent.6240Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There are presently exemptions from the termination of employment provisions under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 that apply to all businesses, including small businesses, such as those in relation to casual and probationary employees. The Government has also proposed an exemption specifically for small business employers. The proposal is to exclude any new employee (other than an apprentice) of an employer with 1 5 or fewer employees from the provisions on harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment.However, that exemption is not in place, because the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 has twice been rejected by the Senate. The Government will continue to pursue this proposal, at the appropriate time.The exemption would apply to small businesses within the scope of the federal unfair dismissal lawsA small business in Victoria or a Territory is automatically covered by the federal unfair dismissal provisions and therefore would benefit from the proposed federal exemption.A small business owned or controlled by the Commonwealth would also be automatically covered.Other small businesses would only be covered by the federal unfair dismissal provisions (and therefore directly benefit from the exemption) if an employee were employed under a federal award or agreement and one of the following applied:. the small business was a constitutional corporation;. the small business was engaged in certain interstate or overseas trade or commerce; or. there was State legislation applying the federal provisions so as to confer jurisdiction (in respect to dismissals by unincorporated employers of employees covered by federal awards or agreements) on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.(2) It is not possible to specify the number of small businesses which would directly benefit from the Government's proposed exemption from unfair dismissal laws for small businesses, as the operation of the provisions, according to the criteria outlined above, would depend on the details of the interrelationship between federal and State legislation, in each State, at the relevant time.6241(Question No. 2941)29416241McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:Is it a fact that (a) the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's ability to direct parties to an industrial dispute to negotiate in good faith has been removed and (b) section 170QK of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 has been repealed and not replicated in the Workplace Relations Act 1996; if so, why.6241Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The Industrial Relations Act 1988 did not empower the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to direct parties to negotiate in good faith—see Asahi Diamond Industrial Australia Pty Limited v Automotive, Food, Metals and Engineering Union (1995) 59 IR 385 (`Asahi'). In Asahi, a Full Bench of the Commission, in considering whether the Commission had the power to direct parties to negotiate, said (at p421-422) that:"[t]he industrial relations system provided by the [Industrial Relations] Act is one which facilitates and encourages direct bargaining underpinned by an effective award safety net. It is not a system of compulsory negotiation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An agreement cannot be reached with a person who does nor want to agree and negotiations for an agreement cannot take place with a person who does not want to negotiate.It follows from the ordinary meaning of the word `negotiate' that an order that a person negotiate carries the inference that the Commission is ordering that concessions be made. . .such an order is beyond power.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "(b) Section 170QK of the Industrial Relations Act, which was repealed by the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, did not confer any substantive power—see Asahi at p424.The Commission's powers with respect to agreements under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 are consistent with the object of giving employers and employees at the workplace or enterprise level greater direct responsibility for matters affecting their relationship—see s.3(b) of the Act.Under the Workplace Relations Act:• the Australian Industrial Relations Commission may exercise conciliation powers to assist parties in connection with negotiations for a certified agreement—see s.170NA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and parties may be directed to attend conferences—see s.1 1 9. Where parties are unable to reach agreement about a particular matter, they may request the Commission to conduct a hearing and make recommendations about the matter. Such recommendations are binding on the parties—see s.1 1 1 AA. An agreement must be approved by or made with a valid majority of employees, and the terms of any agreement put to employees to consider approving or making must be explained to them—see ss170LJ and 170LK.• the Commission's powers in connection with Australian workplace agreements relate only to the approval of agreements, variation agreements and termination of agreements—the Commission has no power to make orders in connection with the negotiation of AWAs. However, it is relevant to note a party to an AWA is required to recognise the other party's bargaining agent [s.170VK(2)], an AWA requires the genuine consent of the employee concerned [s.170VPA] and the employer must have explained the effect of the agreement and provided specified information to the employee [ss.170VPA and 170VO]• under the Coalition's Workplace Relations Act 1996 it is open to the approving authority for workplace agreements, (whether the Office of the Employment Advocate or, in certain circumstances, the AIRC) to consider issues of good faith in deciding whether genuine consent existed at the time agreements were entered into.6242(Question No. 2944)29446242Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) How many persons in his Department worked on the drafting of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 and who were they.(2) On what day did they start work on preparing the bills for introduction to the Parliament.(3) Were persons outside his Department employed or contracted to draft part of either bill; if so, (a) from what date, (b) for what period (c) who were they, (d) what remuneration did each receive, (e) did he or his staff indicate to his Department whom should be employed or contracted and (f) was a recognised tendering process followed.(4) Was any person or group outside the Department other than the persons referred to in part (3) consulted about the drafting of the bills; if so, (a) who were they and (b) were they remunerated for the consultation.(5) Were the draft bills discussed outside the Government before being introduced to the House; if so, (a) with whom, (b) where and when and (c) was he or his staff involved.6242Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows.Six persons employed in the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business worked, or were consulted, on the drafting of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 as follows:. Dr P Shergold, Secretary;. Mr R Stewart-Crompton, Deputy Secretary;. Mr K Bills, First Assistant Secretary, Maritime Transport Division;. Mr D Gillespie, Assistant Secretary, Waterfront and Maritime Team;. Mr B Cooper, Waterfront and Maritime Team; and. Ms R Harrison, Legal Services Branch.(2) Drafting the request for policy approval for levy legislation applying to both the maritime and stevedoring industry commenced on or about 26 February 1998. Preparation of drafting instructions also commenced on or about 26 February 1998. Drafting instructions were issued on 6 March 1998.(3) The Office of Parliamentary Counsel drafted the bills. As stated above, drafting instructions were issued on 6 March 1998.(4) The following persons were consulted about the drafting of the bills:. I and members of my staff;. the acting Solicitor-General;. officers of the Criminal and Civil Law Divisions of the Attorney-General's Department;. officers of the Office of General Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor;. representatives of Patrick Stevedores (see below); and. representatives of P&O Ports (see below).An invoice for professional fees has been received from the Office of General Counsel.(5) Draft legislation was discussed with representatives of Patrick Stevedores and P&O Ports as follows:Patrick:(a) Mr Corrigan of Patrick, Mr Gray of Freehill Hollingdale and Page, solicitors, and Dr Shergold and Mr Gillespie of my Department; (b) Sydney, 29 March 1998;(c) No.P&O:1. Meetings1.1(a) Messrs Hein, Campbell, Setchell, Mason and Russell of P&O Ports and Dr Shergold and Mr Gillespie of my Department;(b) Sydney, 30 March 1998;(c) No.1.2(a) Messrs Hein, Campbell, Setchell, and Mason of P&O Ports and Dr Shergold and Mr Gillespie of my Department;(b) Canberra, 1 April 1998;(c) A number of my staff and I attended the meeting.1.3(a) Mr Mason and Ms Catts of P&O Ports and Dr Shergold and Messrs Gillespie and Cooper of my Department;(b) Canberra, 2 April 1998;(c) No.2. Telephone discussions(a) Mr Mason of P&O Ports and Mr Cooper of my Department;(b) On or about 3 April, 11 April and 12 April (note: Mr Gillespie of my Department also participated in the first discussion);(c) No.6243(Question No. 2947)29476243Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) Has the `One Link' contract made by the Victorian Government for the installation of automated ticketing on Melbourne's railways been examined for compliance with the Commonwealth's Disability Discrimination Act.(2) What action will he take if the contract through an apparent lack of reference to physical disability, intellectual disability and vision impairment fails to meet the requirements of the Act.6243Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) This is a matter for the Victorian Government. The Commonwealth Government is not in the practice of examining State Government contracts for compliance with Commonwealth legislation. (2) Again, compliance with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and Victoria's own Equal Opportunity Act 1995, is ultimately a matter for the Victorian Government. There is a mechanism under both pieces of legislation for a complaint to be made by a person alleged to have suffered discrimination on the basis of disability. Where such an allegation is sustained, the legislation allows for the making of a range of determinations, including a declaration that the person responsible for the discrimination perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant.6243(Question No. 2948)29486243Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) Do all contracts between his Department and community or private service providers in each program require the providers to adhere to the same or similar privacy provisions which apply to the Commonwealth Government.(2) Does the Commonwealth require providers to meet national standards before and during the provision of service.(3) Are providers required to be certified, accredited or licensed; if so, by whom.(4) Are providers required to operate consumer complaints mechanisms during the life of their contracts.(5) Are there further avenues of complaint if internal complaints procedures do not resolve specific complaints.(6) Are all services funded through Commonwealth and State or Territory Agreements required to meet the obligations identified in parts (1) to (4).(7) Are there specific obligations which providers funded through Commonwealth and State or Territory Agreements must meet.(8) Do sanctions apply to providers not meeting the contractual obligations identified in parts (1) to (4).(9) By what mechanism does the Commonwealth ensure the providers fulfil the contractual obligations identified in parts (1) to (4).(10) Are clients of contracted providers able to complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman as a last resort.(11) Were consumer or industry organisations involved in the development of the obligations identified in parts (1) to (4); if so, which organisations in relation to which programs.(12) Are mechanisms established to identify systematic issues of concern to consumers or the industry in relation to the conduct of each program.6244Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:To provide a complete answer to this question would require considerable time and resources to inspect a large number of contracts and, in the interest of efficient utilisation of departmental resources, I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert from existing priorities at this time. However in an effort to assist, general answers can be provided to some of the questions as follows:(1) The Standard Form Contract for Services that is made available for use by Departmental Officers places certain limitations on the use of personal information to ensure protection of such information and, where applicable, compliance with the Information Privacy Principles to which Commonwealth Agencies are subject.(2) The Standard Form Contract for Services does not specifically require service providers to meet national standards although such a requirement may be included in a contract where considered necessary.(3) There is no general provision in the Standard Form Contract for Services requiring the certification, accreditation or licensing of service providers but again such a provision may be included where appropriate.(4) There is no current provision in the Standard Form Contract for services requiring service providers to operate consumer complaint mechanisms during the life of the contract. This would be an unusable provision in a conventional commercial agreement but may be applicable in the case of broad grant or funding agreements.(5) and (10) The consumer can always complain to the Department or the Ombudsman, and other administrative law remedies may be available, but any possible remedy will depend on the particular situation, as will the possibility of complaint to a consumer tribunal.(12) The Department and the Ombudsman are able to identify systematic concerns to the extent that they receive complaints.6244(Question No. 2958)29586244Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 12 May 1998:(1) What published and unpublished qualitative and quantitative research has been undertaken in relation to each program area of his Department during (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98 including activities planned for the remainder of the financial year.(2) With respect to each case referred to in part (1), (a) who was the researcher, (b) what was the cost of the research, (c) what process was used to select the researcher, (d) what are the names of other researchers who were approached or lodged tenders and (e) what product was provided to his Department.(3) In which publications were the results of research referred to in part (1) published.(4) Are the results of research referred to in part (1) which were not published publicly available; if so, through which departmental contacts.(5) Will he make the results of research referred to in part (4) available; if not, why not.(6) Has research been undertaken into the success of (a) marketing activities in print, on radio or on television in relation to programs announced in the (i) 1996-97 and (ii) 1997-98 budgets or (b) campaign activities in print, on radio or on television in relation to (i) illicit drugs, (ii) mental health, (iii) HIV/AIDS, (iv) tobacco, (v) women's health (vi) alcohol and (vii) sexual health.(7) What was the cost of advertising in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98, in each program, and what were the activities or campaigns involved.6244Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (7) To provide a complete answer to this question would require considerable time and resources and in the interest of efficient utilisation of department resources, I am not prepared to ask my Department to divert from existing priorities at this time.6244(Question No. 2961)29616244McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) Further to the answer to questions Nos. 103 (Hansard , 23 May 1996, page 1378) and 2236 (Hansard , 12 May 1998, page 3018), will he clarify (a) the difference between `strict guidelines' and a `number of factors' and (b) whether the factors referred to in part (1) of the answer to question No. 2236 constitute the `strict guidelines' referred to in the answer to question No. 103.(2) Does he, his office or his Department have a role in the identification of sites for the establish ment of Medicare customer service centres, if so, (a) what role and (b) how was it exercised in determining the 1 7 Medicare offices which were closed in New South Wales.6245Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) There is no difference between `strict guidelines' and a `number of factors'.(b) Yes.(2) (a) (b) HIC management makes all decisions regarding the establishment or closure of Medicare offices. I endorse those decisions.6245(Question No. 2963)29636245McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:Did the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) decide to close the Rockdale, NSW, Medical Customer Service Centre without having information about the effects of the (a) substantial upgrading of the St George Hospital at Kogarah, (b) opening in November 1995 of the St George Private Hospital adjacent to the regional hospital and (c) number of patients visiting doctors using the hospitals; if not, (i) should the information have been considered before the decision was made and (ii) will he request the HIC to reconsider its decision.6245Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The answer to this question has previously been provided in Question Nos. 103 and 2236.6245(Question No. 2969)29696245Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) With which countries does Australia have enhanced reciprocal health care agreements.(2) What changes to the agreement with New Zealand were introduced by the enhanced reciprocal health care agreement which he signed on 4 May 1998.(3) How does an enhanced reciprocal health care agreement differ from other health care agreements between Australia and other countries.(4) How many persons entitled to enter Australia through New Zealand were treated under the health care agreement with New Zealand in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(5) What did the treatment referred to in part (4) cost the Commonwealth and States in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(6) How many of the persons referred to in part (4) in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98 (i) were and (ii) were not New Zealand citizens.(7) How many Australians were treated in New Zealand in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98 under the same agreement.(8) What did the treatment referred to in part (7) cost New Zealand in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(9) With which countries is Australia discussing establishing similar reciprocal health care agreements.(10) How many persons entitled to enter Australia from each other country with which Australia has a reciprocal health care agreement were treated under the agreement in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(11) What did the treatment for persons from each country referred to in part (10) cost the Commonwealth and States in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(12) How many Australians were treated in each other country with which Australia has a reciprocal health care agreement in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(13) What was the cost of the treatment to each other country referred to in part (12) of treating Australians under the relevant agreement in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.6245Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Australia currently has Reciprocal Health Care Agreements with New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Italy, Malta, The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland. A Reciprocal Health Care Agreement with Ireland commenced on 25 May 1998. There is not a category of "enhanced" agreements; rather from time to time an aspect of an agreement is improved by amendment.(2) The new Agreement with New Zealand has numerous differences in wording made in order to clarify the existing arrangements. The only change in the effect of the Agreement will be that access to Medicare benefits for doctors' and optometrists' services provided on a private basis out of hospital will no longer be available to visitors from New Zealand. (3) For some years the Agreement with New Zealand has been different from the other agreements in that reciprocity had been significantly reduced as a result of changes to the New Zealand health system in 1992 which resulted in Australian visitors to New Zealand not being eligible for benefits for medical services provided out of hospital. The recent amendment to the Agreement restores reciprocity, making it the same in this respect as the other Agreements.No two of the Agreements are identical. Variations between Agreements include requirements for eligibility and entitlements. The Agreement with Ireland which came into effect on 25 May 1998 is similar to the amended agreement with New Zealand in that it does not cover medical services provided out of hospital.(4) Under the agreement which has applied to date, New Zealand visitors to Australia can be treated as public patients in public hospitals, can receive Medicare benefits for doctors' services provided on a private basis out of hospital, and receive pharmaceutical benefits.Public hospital services are provided by the States and Territories. The Commonwealth does not collect data from the States and Territories on the numbers of public patients treated under Reciprocal Health Care Agreements.Data on the number of visitors receiving pharmaceutical benefits under the Reciprocal Health Care Agreement is not available.(a)—(b) Data on the numbers of visitors from New Zealand receiving Medicare benefits in 1993/94 and 1994/95 are not readily available and could not be provided without extensive data re-processing.Data for subsequent financial years are as follows:Financial YearNo. of visitors receiving Medicare benefits for at least one service(c) 1995/9627,710(d) 1996/9727,953(e) 1997—4/9824,642(5) The Commonwealth does not collect data from the States and Territories on the costs of public hospital treatment under Reciprocal Health Care Agreements. Data on the costs of pharmaceutical benefits for visitors from New Zealand are not available.Data on Medicare benefits expenditure under the Agreement with New Zealand are as follows:Financial YearMedicare Benefits expenditure ($)(a) 1993/942,937,010(b) 1994/95not readily available*(c) 1995/963,299,505(d) 1996/973,226,901(e) 1997—4/982,613,410* due to changes in data management arrangements(6) The Agreement covers residents of New Zealand. The Medicare enrolment records do not distinguish between residents who are citizens and residents who are not.(7) Data on the number of Australian visitors to New Zealand treated under the Agreement are not available.(8) Data on the costs of treatment of Australian visitors to New Zealand under the Agreement are not available.(9) Active substantive discussions of possible Reciprocal Health Care Agreements are being held with Norway and Denmark. Enquiries and discus sions with other countries occur from time to time but none of these are substantive and ongoing.(10) Data on the number of persons from each country receiving public hospital treatment are not available. Data on the number of persons from each country receiving pharmaceutical benefits are not available.(a)—(b) Data on the number of visitors receiving Medicare benefits in 1993/94 and 1994/95 are not readily available and could not be provided without extensive data re-processing.Data on the number of visitors receiving Medicare benefits for at least one service in the subsequent financial years are as follows: Country(c) 1995/96(d) 1996/97(e) 1997—4/98Finland99135136Italy1,4091,6381,546Malta293257262Netherlands680886973Sweden615656659UK28,40632,32731,779(11) As indicated in the answer to question (5), data is not available on costs to the States of providing public hospital services nor on pharmaceutical benefits expenditure.(a)—(b) Data on Medicare benefits expenditure in 1993/94 and 1994/95 are not readily available and could not be provided without extensive data re-processing, thus incurring additional costs to public outlays.Data on Medicare benefits expenditure for at least one service in the subsequent financial years are as follows:Country(c) 1995/96(d) 1996/97(e) 1997—4/98$$$Finland12,33512,25214,156Italy154,968171,283154,881Malta29,54523,00619,674Netherlands51,95472,84277,202Sweden43,20450,82254,737UK2,528,4572,894,0772,769,384(12) Italy has indicated that in 1993 the number of Australian visitors treated was 404. No other data are available.(13) Italy has indicated that its expenditure for 1993 was 756 million lire. No other data are available.6247(Question No. 2971)29716247Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 May 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2658, (a) what sum has his Department committed to promoting the Job Network, (b) for what period has the sum been committed, (c) for what period will the promotion campaign run, (d) what sum has been allocated to the campaign for (i) radio, (ii) television, (iii) print media and (iv) direct mail, (e) how was the nature of the campaign determined, (f) was his staff involved in developing the campaign, (g) what media research was undertaken before the campaign was determined, (h) what was the cost of the research, (i) how were the companies involved in the campaign selected, (j) what are their names, (k) what sum has each been allocated and (l) for what component of the campaign is each responsible.(2) Has Employment National committed a sum to promoting the creation of the new government job agency; if so, (a) what sum, (b) for what period has the sum been committed, (c) for what period will the promotion campaign run, (d) what sum has been allocated to the campaign for (i) radio, (ii) television, (iii) print media and (iv) direct mail, (e) how was the nature of the campaign determined, (f) was he, his Department or his staff involved in developing the campaign, (g) what media research was undertaken before the campaign was determined, (h) what was the cost of the research, (i) how were the companies involved in the campaign selected, (j) what are their names, (k) what sum has each been allocated and (l) for what component of the campaign is each responsible.6247Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) As at 19 June 1998 approximately $7.77 million has been committed to promoting Job Network.(b) Approximately $7.3 million will be spent within the 1997/98 financial year. The remainder is expected to be spent early in the 1998/99 financial year. (c) The campaign commenced on 26 February 1998. The television component and the major part of the print media campaign finished on 6 June 1998. Other related print media advertising and public relations activity may continue until September 1998.(d) (i) Radio $189,915; (ii) Television $4,006,446; (iii) Print media $2,142,860; (iv) Direct mail nil.(e) and (f) The campaign strategy was developed jointly by the Department (DEETYA), the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA), the Office of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the selected communications consultants.(g) Initial benchmark research was undertaken to assess job seeker, employer and community awareness levels and identify the information barriers of major stakeholders.(h) The cost of the initial benchmark research was $74,000.(i) The engaging of consultants for the campaign followed due process as advised by OGIA, the key components of which are:. the Department and OGIA developed the brief and compiled a list of consultants who could be invited to tender;. the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications (MCGC) approved the final brief and the list of consultants to be invited to tender;. the tenders received were assessed by a committee comprised of representatives from DEETYA, the Office of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and OGIA. As a consequence, two consultants were selected to present to MCGC; and. final selection of consultant by MCGC.(j) and (l) The research contract was awarded to Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd, the advertising contract to Ammirati Puris Lintas Pty Ltd, and the public relations contract to Wright Business Marketing Pty Ltd. Printing and distribution is being handled under a standing contract with JS McMillan Printing Group.(k) This is how much they will be paid: Ammirati Puris Lintas Pty Ltd—$1,796,952; Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd—$183,450; Wright Business Marketing Pty Ltd—$350,000; JS McMillan Printing Group—$325,000.(2) The marketing campaign of Employment National, its composition, targeting and commercial arrangements with its contractors, are matters for the Board and management of Employment Nation al itself. Neither I nor my Department or staff were involved in the development of this campaign.Employment National has provided the following information in response to relevant parts of the honourable member's question:No, however Employment National did commit a sum to educating the public and potential clients and candidates as to its own existence and role.(a) $8.4 million.(b) For 1997/98.(c) The campaign ran from 1 December 1997 until June 1998.(d) As reported in the answer to Senate Estimates Question No. 758, some 41% of campaign funds were spent on television, 11% on radio, 18.5% on print media, 8.6% on direct marketing and the balance on other items of expenditure.(e) By the Board of Employment National Limited.(f) No.(g) Research was undertaken on the brand name and its value, on the proposed market segmentation and market positioning; and on the tag lines and target groups. Benchmarking and tracking research was also conducted.(h) Approximately $250,000.(i) By tender and by recommendation.(j) George Patterson Bates and Keystone Corporate Positioning.(k) The actual payments in 1997-98 are commercial-in-confidence but were not pursuant to a prior commitment.(l) George Patterson Bates was responsible for production, distribution and buying of TV, radio, print advertising and direct marketing materials. Keystone Corporate Positioning was responsible for the early research, marketing positioning and market segmentation and project management.6248(Question No. 2980)29806248Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice on 13 May 1998:Does he employ Dr James Popple on his staff; if so, (a) how long has he been employed, (b) what is his position, and (c) what does he do.6248Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:No. 6249(Question No. 2982)29826249Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 14 May 1998:(1) What rights do employees of an organisation have to know (a) the precise entity who employs them in circumstances where the entity forms part of an aggregation of companies, trusts and partnerships, (b) the financial position of the organisation and its ability to meet employees' accrued entitlements and (c) about financial transactions entered into by the organisation which may substantially affect its ability to meet the liabilities.(2) Is he able to say who is the employer of employees at the (a) Hunter Valley No. 1 and (b) Mount Thorley mines.6249Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In accordance with the Standing Orders, it would not be appropriate for me to provide a legal opinion in response to the honourable member's question. I can indicate, in general terms:(a) The relationship of employment is created by a contract between the employer and the employee. An employee cannot be transferred to another employer without the employee's consent. It is difficult to see how there could be a concluded contract between two parties without each party knowing the identity of the other; and(b) and (c) As is the situation with other creditors, an employee has no specific legal right to information about the financial position, or transactions, of the organisation.(2) I am advised that the employer at both the Hunter Valley No. 1 and Mount Thorley mines is Coal and Allied Industries Ltd.6249(Question No. 2986)29866249Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford3J4Port AdelaideALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 14 May 1998:How many Medicare services were (a) provided and (b) direct billed by (i) general practitioners and (ii) specialists in each postcode area in the electoral division of Port Adelaide between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1997.6249Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Details of the number of services provided, and the number of services direct billed, by general practitioners and specialists in the electoral division of Port Adelaide, based on claims processed by the Health Insurance Commission in 1996-97, are as follows:General practitioners—Number of services provided—816,097; number of services direct billed—749,328.Specialists—Number of services provided—234,763; number of services direct billed—118,659.To provide a complete answer to the honourable member's question would require considerable time and resources to manually review the individual postcode tables and selectively collapse individual categories so as to preserve confidentiality with respect to individual practitioner's practice patterns. I am therefore not prepared to ask my Department to divert the necessary time and resources at this time. Aggregating data up to electorate level overcomes this problem.Since some postcodes overlap federal electoral division boundaries, the requested data, by servicing provider postcode, have been mapped to electorate using data from the Census of Population and Housing showing the proportion of the population in each postcode in each federal electoral division.The above data relate to services rendered on a `fee-for-service' basis for which Medicare benefits were paid. Excluded are details of services to public patients in hospital, to Veterans' Affairs patients and some compensation cases.All practitioners with more than 50 per cent of Schedule fee income from unreferred attendances in the June quarter 1997, were considered to be general practitioners. All other practitioners, including optometrists, and some dentists who can render eligible services, were considered to be specialists. If a practitioner was a general practitioner or specialist in the June quarter 1997, it was assumed that categorisation applied for the whole year.6249(Question No. 2988)29886249Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 25 May 1998:(1) Is he able to say whether Ashanti, the owner of Cobar Mines, has issued a dividend to its shareholders while former employees and unsecured creditors in Cobar and elsewhere have received a fraction of their entitlements.(2) Will the Government consider similar arrangements to those proposed in the Stevedoring Levy Bills to enable Cobar mine workers to receive their entitlements; if not, what steps will the Government take.(3) Is he able to say at what stage is the Australian Securities Commission's investigation into Ashanti's operation in Cobar and when there will be an outcome.(4) Will the Government introduce legislation to prevent employers from structuring their operations to avoid obligations to employees and creditors; if not, why not.6250Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Ashanti Goldfields Company Ltd (`Ashanti') became the ultimate holding company of Cobar Mines Pty Ltd (`Cobar Mines') following its 1996 acquisition of Golden Shamrock Mines Ltd. Cobar Mines owned and operated the CSA mine until late January 1998 when an administrator was appointed to the company and the mine placed on `care and maintenance'. All employees of Cobar Mines were retrenched on 29 January 1998. A liquidator was appointed to the company in February 1998.At the time of the retrenchments, the former employees were owed around $10.5 million. The liquidator advises that wages and superannuation entitlements totalling approximately $1.1 million were paid shortly after the retrenchments occurred. Around half of the former employees' leave entitlements, which total nearly $4.0 million, have now been paid. An additional $5.4 million, representing retrenchment pay, remains outstanding.No payment has been made to any other unsecured creditors. Cobar Mines owes nearly $24 million to various unsecured creditors, including around $5.6 million to trade creditors.I am advised that the 1997 Annual Report of Ashanti indicates that the company paid a dividend of US20c per share on 109,019,501 shares for the calender year 1997. This dividend was paid on 27 May 1998.(2) There are considerable differences between the proposed assistance to retrenched waterfront employees and the regrettable circumstances of the former employees of the CSA mine.The redundancy funding arrangement in the stevedoring industry is only a part of a broader waterfront reform program directed at improving the international competitiveness of the industry.The waterfront reform program is expected to result in stevedoring companies implementing significant structural changes and to manage the resulting rationalisation of their workforces. The Federal Government's redundancy funding arrangements are intended to assist in meeting the costs of redundancies arising from the reform and restructuring of the industry. They are not confined to any particular employer or group of employees. Funding is not available under this arrangement for redundancies arising where commercial or market circumstances force the closure of a particular business.The Federal Government considers that the promotion of industry-wide reform is different to the circumstances where an individual enterprise, like the CSA mine, is closed due to commercial or other considerations related to that particular business. Australian stevedores are operating viable businesses that provide the industry with the capacity to repay through levy the funds provided by the Federal Government's redundancy funding arrangements. This means that ultimately the cost will be borne by the stevedoring industry and not by the Australian taxpayer.In relation to the specific Cobar situation, the Government is considering a request from the Cobar community for assistance for the miners and their families.(3) I am advised that the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) is continuing its formal investigation into allegations of possible insolvent trading in the period leading up to the appointment of the administrator to Cobar Mines. The ASC is also considering whether any holding company may be liable in respect of any of the debts of Cobar Mines. I am unable to provide any information as to the timing of an outcome from the ASC's investigation.(4) The issue of how best to protect the entitlements of employees in the event of their employer's insolvency is complex. Accordingly, if legislative action is to be considered by any jurisdiction, it must be practical and effective.The issue of protecting employee entitlements has been accepted by State and Territory Governments as being, in part, their responsibility. This reflects the fact that these entitlements may be provided for by State or Territory legislation or State awards (as is the case for the Cobar miners).The Government remains committed to examining how the entitlements of employees can be protected. On 1 May 1998, the Labour Ministers' Council asked the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee to undertake detailed consideration of the issue, including consultation with all affected parties, and report to the next meeting of the Council. The report is to address how employee entitlements are currently protected within jurisdictions and options for improving that protection.I am aware that the Opposition's Employment Security Bill proposes amendments to the Corporations Law to make corporations liable for the debts of related insolvent companies.Advice from the Department of the Treasury is that the Corporations Law already provides substan tial protection against asset stripping to defeat creditors. It provides that holding companies can be held liable for debts incurred by their subsidiaries while insolvent.In addition, Part 5.7B of the Corporations Law contains provisions that allow a liquidator to claw back preferential payments made to any parties in the period leading to the winding up of a company. Where the recipient is a related party, the relevant `claw back' period may be up to ten years, providing substantial protection for creditors from fraudulent arrangements designed to defeat creditors' claims.6251(Question No. 2989)29896251Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, on notice, on 25 May 1998:(1) What sum has his Department spent on legal and consultancy fees for waterfront related matters since assuming responsibility for waterfront reform.(2) With respect to each instance of expenditure referred to in part (1), (a) to whom was the sum paid, (b) for what services was it paid, (c) how were the lawyers or consultants chosen, (d) was a public tendering process involved, (e) on what basis was the sum paid to each person or company involved and (f) were departmental officers seconded to help the lawyers or consultants; if so, (i) what did the secondment cost, (ii) what are the officers' names, (iii) what time did they spend on the work away from their normal duties and (iv) when and where did they perform the work.6251Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Since the transfer of maritime transport responsibilities to the Workplace Relations and Small Business portfolio on 9 October 1997, the sum of $1,435,693.33 has been spent on legal and consultancy fees relating to waterfront reform.(2) (a) Legal and consultancy costs have been incurred as follows:(Note: These figures represent the amounts spent by the Workplace Relations and Small Business portfolio. In some cases the figure does not represent the total cost of the consultancy, as payments were made by the Transport and Regional Development portfolio before the maritime transport function was transferred)ConsultantNature of Work(1) TotalACIL Economics and Policy Pty LtdDevelopment of industrial relations strategy for waterfront reform114,074.80Minter Ellison LawyersResearch and advice on maritime issues122,769.61Dr Stephen WebsterOptions for achieving waterfront reform7,758.15Dr John DaviesOptions for achieving waterfront reform21,952.54Mr David WebbResearch and advice on maritime issues4,658.85BGC MediaResearch and advice on maritime issues4,968.53Corrs Chambers Westgarth LawyersResearch and advice on maritime issues89,956.28National Institute of Labour StudiesResearch and advice on maritime issues15,375.00Dr CN Jessup QC BarristerAdvice on maritime issues950.00 Australian Government SolicitorAdvice on maritime issues, including in relation to legal proceedings120877.19Dunhill Madden Butler LawyersAdvice on maritime issues, including in relation to legal proceedings, and representation in legal proceedings932,352.38** This figure represents the sum of the accounts rendered by Dunhill Madden Butler to 30 June 1998. Not all these accounts have yet been paid.(b) The legal costs incurred cover legal advice and representation, including professional advice, counsel fees and other costs incurred in connection with the provision of the advice and representation (eg, travel, court fees, agents' fees, courier and facsimile costs). The consultancy costs cover fees for provision of research, advice and development of options and strategies relating to waterfront reform, plus disbursements.(c) I am advised that ACIL Economics & Policy Pty Ltd was engaged by the Department of Transport and Regional Development at the request of Minister Sharp on the basis that there was a need to further develop or enhance the tasks previously carried out by ACIL and which required special knowledge and familiarity with the previous task.I am also advised that Dr Stephen Webster was also engaged by the Department of Transport and Regional Development at the request of Minister Sharp, and that Dr John Davies, Mr David Webb, BGC Media, Minter Ellison, Corrs Chambers Westgarth and the National Institute of Labour Studies were each nominated by Dr Webster and referred to Minister Sharp's office for approval. (Minter Ellison was also engaged separately by the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business to provide advice on some issues related to waterfront/maritime reform. In that case, the firm was chosen on the basis of its expertise and availability. The cost of that advice ($12,483.88) is included in the figure of $122,769.61 mentioned in paragraph 2(a) above).In the case of the work performed by Dunhill Madden Butler, I decided that in addition to the services provided by the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS), it was necessary to retain the services of a private law firm to provide advice, and if necessary, representation for the Commonwealth in a range of matters connected with waterfront reform. I asked my Department to compile a list of firms with acknowledged expertise in the areas of law relevant to waterfront reform and selected Dunhill Madden Butler from that list. Consistent with Government policy in connection with the progressive untying of Commonwealth litigation from AGS, my selection of Dunhill Madden Butler to represent the Commonwealth in litigation was referred to the Attorney-General for approval.(d) No public tendering process was involved.(e) The basis of payments to AGS, private law firms and counsel engaged by my Department was that fees would be paid for professional services at agreed hourly or daily rates (which vary according to whether particular work has been performed by counsel, partner, senior or junior solicitor) and for costs incurred in connection with the provision of those services (such as travel, court fees, agents' fees, courier and facsimile costs).Fees and disbursements were paid to consultants on the basis of contracts between the consultant and the Commonwealth.(f) Departmental officers have not been seconded to help the lawyers or consultants referred to above. However, in the course of their normal duties, Departmental officers have undertaken related tasks such as the preparation of requests for advice, compilation of background material for purposes of obtaining advice and preparing submissions and documents for litigation and provision of instructions in connection with legal and consultancy services.6252(Question No. 2990)29906252Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 25 May 1998:Since March 1996, have officers in his Department ordered the conduct of opinion polling, focus group research or other market research on waterfront matters; if so, (a) when did the research take place, (b) who undertook the research, (c) was the research contracted under a tendering process open to all market research groups, (d) how were the persons who undertook the research chosen and (e) were departmental officers seconded to help the researchers; if so, (i) what did the secondment cost, (ii) what are the officers' names, (iii) what time did they spend on the work away from their normal duties and (iv) when and where did they perform the work.6253Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) to (e) My Department has not commissioned or participated in such research. With the approval of the Commonwealth, focus group research was sub-contracted to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd by ACIL Economics and Public Policy Pty Ltd, under its contract with the Commonwealth entered into by the Department of Transport and Regional Development (DTRD), on 16 June 1997. The research was completed before the maritime responsibilities of that portfolio were transferred to my portfolio. The relevant officers of DTRD transferred to my Department on 9 October 1997.This is a matter relevant to current proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Maritime Union of Australia. While those proceedings remain on foot, canvassing this matter outside the Court's processes could prejudice the impartial adjudication of the matter and the rights of the parties to the proceedings.6253(Question No. 2992)29926253McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 25 May 1998:What total legal costs did the Commonwealth incur from the legal proceedings between Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Limited and Others and the Maritime Union of Australia and Others, including all work in respect of the proceedings at first instance before his Honour Mr Justice North in the Federal Court of Australia, the appeal to the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia and the subsequent proceedings before the High Court of Australia resulting in an order dated 4 May 1998.6253Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:To 30 June 1998 the Commonwealth incurred legal costs of $727,169.07 in relation to legal proceedings between Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Limited and Others and the Maritime Union of Australia. This amount includes costs incurred in connection with the particular matters to which the honourable member referred.6253(Question No. 2996)29966253McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 26 May 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2542 (Hansard, 5 March 1998, page 690), did Dr Stephen Webster provide written advice on maritime issues; if so, in each case, (a) on what date was the advice provided and (b) what were the major recommendations contained in the advice.(2) Is he able to say with whom Dr Webster spoke or met on 30 July 1997 in connection with his consultancy(3) Did Dr Webster speak to or meet with (a) Mr Wells, (b) Mr Kilfoyle, (c) Mr Corrigan, (d) Mr Scanlan or (e) Mr Ferguson on 30 July 1997; if so, in each case, what was the nature of the discussion.6253Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Dr Webster did provide written advice on maritime issues.(a) The advice was provided on 3 October 1997.(b) This is a matter relevant to current proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Maritime Union of Australia. While those proceedings remain on foot, canvassing this matter outside the Court's processes could prejudice the impartial adjudication of the matter and the rights of the parties to the proceedings.(2) & (3) This is a matter relevant to current proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia brought by the Maritime Union of Australia. While those proceedings remain on foot, canvassing this matter outside the Court's processes could prejudice the impartial adjudication of the matter and the rights of the parties to the proceedings.6253(Question No. 3004)30046253Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1998:(1) What is the estimated number of Australian veterans who served with the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (BCOF) in Japan. (2) Has his Department established a nominal roll of the veterans.(3) When did the first Australian BCOF personnel arrive in Japan and how many were involved in the initial contingent.(4) How many Australia personnel, including prisoners of war, were in Japan before the first BCOF contingent arrived and in what locations.(5) How many other Australian veterans in total were at any time in the vicinity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki between August 1945 and July 1946.(6) How many BCOF veterans have been accepted for disability pension purposes as having (a) cancer, (b) leukaemia, (c) lymphomas, (d) cataracts, and (e) tumours.(7) Has his Department ever conducted a health or mortality study of BCOF veterans: if not, why not.6254Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Approximately 20,000.(2) Not at this stage. However, my Department has commissioned a study into the feasibility, cost and means of producing a nominal roll of all who have served in the Australian military forces since Federation. A nominal roll for the members of BCOF could be one outcome from this exercise.(3) February 1946. The Official Historian of the Korean War, Dr Robert O'Neill, in Australia in the Korean War 1950-53, Volume 1 Strategy and Diplomacy, (p32), advised that: "Approximately 11,500 Australians had been sent to Japan by February 1946 to join other service personnel from the United Kingdom, India, New Zealand and Australia to make up the British Commonwealth Occupation Force."(4) The required information is not available. However, the official history states that at the end of the war 2700 Australian prisoners of war were in Korea, Manchuria and Japan. Australian ships serving with the United States Navy and the British Pacific Fleet operated in Japanese waters before and after the surrender.(5) It is understood that 26 Australian veterans were in the vicinity of Nagasaki when the atomic bomb was detonated. No Australian veterans were in the vicinity of Hiroshima. Between February 1946 and July 1946 all members of BCOF would have had the opportunity to visit Hiroshima. The numbers who actually did so are unknown.(6) The required information is not available. Departmental electronic records do not readily enable a distinction between those members of BCOF with Word War II operational service and others who had only served in BCOF. The cost of researching the information is prohibitive. It should also be noted that the first Australian veterans who served in BCOF arrived in Japan in February 1946, some five months after cessation of hostile action and some seven months after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.By February 1946 the level of radiation present in the environment in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was essentially at normal background levels. In the case of Hiroshima, Professor P L T Ilbery, a leading researcher in this subject, advised my Department on 7 January 1985, that the maximum dose to entrants into the city immediately after the blast had been calculated by studies at 24 units of radiation. By the time Australian servicemen in BCOF entered the city, the residual radiation level calculated to an infinite time would have been less than one unit.To put this in context, Professor Ilbery provided the following hypothetical example. If a serviceman had been at the middle of the blast area for a whole year from February 1946, his dose of radiation would have been about equivalent to the figure permitted for public exposure by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. This figure for the general public is itself one tenth of the annual dose equivalent limit for those engaged in radiation work.Information available from some studies indicates that the incidence of cancers among ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese (ex-POWs-J) is the same as that in the control group. One study in particular was published in the 8 September 1960 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, ie "Delayed Radiation Effects in Survivors of the Atomic Bombings: A Summary of the Findings of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, 1947-1959" by Dr J W Hollingsworth, MD, Chief, Medical Service, Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission; and assistant professor of medicine, Yale University School of Medicine.(7) No. There has been no evidence found to date that the health of these veterans was different to that of other veterans. A nominal roll would need to be established before such a study could be undertaken (see (2) above).6254(Question No. 3011)30116254McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service upon notice, on 27 May 1998:(1) Is he able to say how many persons who were previously employed by the Australian Public Service on a full-time basis are employed by agencies which have subcontracted their services to the Commonwealth (2) Have the persons referred to in part (1) retained continuity of employment benefits.(3) Has the Government guaranteed the employment entitlements of the employees in the event of their current employer becoming insolvent; if not, will the Government do so.6255Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No, the APS does not maintain Service-wide statistics on the post-separation employment of persons who leave the APS.(2) There are currently two approaches for handling the staffing implications of outsourcing in the APS—the Clean Break approach and the Phased approach. The decision about which approach will be adopted is a matter for the outsourcing agency.Under the Phased approach, provisions are included in the contract which requires the new provider of the outsourced function to meet its additional staffing requirements initially from the pool of staff affected by the outsourcing decision. The outsourcing agency is expected to enter into negotiations with the new provider about employment opportunities for existing APS staff and about the terms and conditions of employment. APS staff who wish to take up employment with the new provider are expected to resign from the APS to do so.Under the Clean Break approach, the staff currently performing the function are dealt with under the relevant redeployment and retirement arrangements in operation in the agency. The recruitment of staff to perform the function after it is outsourced is left solely to the contractor, who may negotiate directly with staff of the outsourcing agency about future employment prospects and terms and conditions of employment that might apply. There are no restrictions on the future employment of such staff with the contractor. Under the Clean Break approach, the outsourcing agency is precluded from entering into negotiations with the contractor about jobs and/or terms and conditions of employment for staff leaving the APS.(3) There are no guaranteed employment entitlements for an employee who accepts voluntary retrenchment from the APS and is subsequently successful in obtaining employment with a private sector firm which provides services to the Commonwealth, in the event that the new provider becomes insolvent.6255(Question No. 3015)30156255Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 27 May 1998:Further to the answer to part (4) of question No. 2892, is it a fact that there is no interference between the GSM and analogue signal; if so, why is the analogue system being discarded.6255Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The decision to phaseout AMPS was not made because of interference problems with GSM. The decision to close the AMPS network on 1 January 2000 was made by a previous Labor Government on competition grounds in 1992.The ACA advises that GSM mobile phones can interfere with their analogue counterparts. Different AMPS phones experience the interference to varying degrees. It is also a fact that AMPS base stations can interfere with their digital counterparts.Telstra has advised that it found in the second half of 1993, that some AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone System) analogue cellular mobile phones can suffer interference from nearby GSM (Global System for Mobile communications) cellular mobile phones operating on a digital service. The interference is from radio transmitter and radio receiver incompatibility.The severity of the interference experienced depends on the distance between the phones involved and varies from none, through a mild background buzz, up to loss or inability to make a call. The three operators' GSM spectrum allocations are such that subscribers to the Telstra GSM service have the greatest potential for causing significant interference to AMPS subscribers. Subscribers to Optus' service are the next most likely, and subscribers to Vodafone's service are the least likely.The interference is a result of the two services, AMPS and GSM, operating in immediately adjacent frequency allocations. Telstra's GSM spectrum is closest to the AMPS spectrum, hence the greater potential for Telstra's GSM to interfere with AMPS. The allocations are the standard ones employed throughout the world. AMPS pre-dates GSM by several years but the frequency positioning of GSM was made in a European context that would not have foreseen operation of GSM alongside an AMPS system. The ACA advises however, that there are now more than a dozen countries that operate, or intend to operate, GSM and AMPS systems in parallel.The measures implemented to address the AMPS interference issue include:. network engineering; by careful selection of cell site frequencies within their allocations, and by creation of micro-cells in anticipated trouble spots such as airport lounges, the mobile carriers could largely eliminate the potential for interference to AMPS users in such areas;. warnings; the ACA produces a warning notice advising users of the interference potential of mobile phones. A preface to the advice recommends its inclusion in the documentation and/or packaging accompanying each phone.. standards; following a program of testing, Standards Australia developed an immunity standard for AMPS handsets.6256(Question No. 3017)30176256Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1998:Have funding decisions been made for organisations conducting the ongoing Job Placement, Employment and Training Projects; if so, (a) when will the successful organisations be announced, (b) are the successful organisations spread over all electoral divisions; and (c) has the announcement of the successful organisations been delayed; if so, why.6256Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) An announcement of the organisations which successfully tendered for provision of JPET services was made on 16 June 1998.(b) The distribution of JPET services is spread across the country, where disadvantaged and at risk populations of young people are highest. There are 102 services covering 75 electorates.In some instances an organisation may be proposing to provide services across more than one electorate.(c) No.6256(Question No. 3027)30276256Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1998:(1) How many federal and State police have served in the Australian contingent (AUSCIVPOL) of the UN Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and over what period.(2) How many members of the (a) overall UN force and (b) Australian contingent were killed or seriously maimed during their peacekeeping service in Cyprus. (3) What repatriation entitlements, including treatment benefits, are available to (a) ADF personnel and (b) police personnel as a result of UN service in Cyprus.(4) Is peacekeeping, peacemaking or other service under the auspices of the UN considered to be qualifying service for service pension purposes; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) how many veterans are involved.6256Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Australian Federal Police (AFP) estimate that since 1964 about 1,090 federal and State police have served in the Australian contingent of the UN Force in Cyprus.(2) Fatalities of peacekeeping service in Cyprus:(a) overall UN force—168 (police: 3; civilian: 3; military: 162) (Source: United Nations).(b) AUSCIVPOL—3 (Source: AFP).The total 168 UN force fatalities resulted from accidents (91), illness (40), hostile acts (15), and 22 (other causes). One AUSCIVPOL casualty is reported as resulting from a mine blast, and the other two from vehicle accidents.No figures are available for those seriously maimed for the UN force or for AUSCIVPOL.(3) (a) ADF personnel are eligible for disability compensation and treatment for injury or disease arising from their UN service in Cyprus.(b) Police personnel are similarly eligible for disability compensation and treatment for injury or disease arising from their UN service in Cyprus.(4) (a) Peacekeeping is not considered to be qualifying service for service pension purposes. Peace enforcement (peacemaking ) is not considered to be qualifying service for service pension purposes, unless it is designated "warlike".The Department of Defence is responsible for designating service. Since May 1993 the terms "warlike" and "non-warlike" have been employed to classify service which was previously termed "operational".Warlike service involves the application of force against an armed adversary in conventional situations such as war or peace enforcement operations. If designated as "warlike", ADF personnel and police in peace enforcement operations would be eligible for both service and disability pensions.(b) My Department has no information on the number of veterans involved in these operations.6256(Question No. 3030)30306256Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 June 1998:What were the dates and terms of correspondence between the Wran Government and the Fraser Government concerning the nomination which was lodged for the inscription of the Opera House and its setting on the World Heritage List in 1981.6257Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The information provided here is drawn solely from the file records of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.(2) The dates and terms of correspondence regarding the nomination which was lodged for the inscription of the Opera House and its setting on the World Heritage List in 1981 are:. Letter dated 11 August 1980 from the NSW Premier's office to the Commonwealth Minister for Science and Environment nominating (inter alia) the Opera House.. Letter dated 18 August 1980 from the Minister for Home Affairs to the NSW Premier acknowledging receipt of letter of 11 August 1980 regarding World Heritage nominations.. Letter dated 22 December 1980 from the Acting Prime Minister to the NSW Premier enclosing World Heritage nomination forms for Opera House (inter alia).. Letter dated 24 December 1980 from the NSW Premier to the Acting Prime Minister giving NSW agreement to (inter alia) Opera House nomination and attaching completed forms.. Letter dated 5 June 1981 from the Australian Committee on World Heritage Convention to the NSW Environment Protection Division suggesting withdrawal of or variation to the Opera House nomination, due to World Heritage Committee advice that the existing nomination would not succeed.. Letter dated 19 June 1981 from the Australian Heritage Commission to the NSW Environment Protection Division forwarding documents from Paris related to the Opera House nomination.. Letter dated 7 August 1981 from the NSW Environment Protection Division to the Australian Heritage Commission regarding variation of the Opera House nomination.. Letter dated 25 August 1981 from the Australian Heritage Commission to the NSW Environment Protection Division discussing the Opera House nomination.. Letter dated 11 September 1981 from the NSW Environment Protection Division to the Australian Heritage Commission acknowledging the Commission's letter of 25 August 1981. . Telex (undated) from the Prime Minister to the NSW Premier regarding the decision to withdraw the Opera House nomination because of the likelihood that it would not be accepted by the World Heritage Committee.6257(Question No. 3035)30356257Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism upon notice, on 3 June 1998:(1) In relation to the legal dispute between the CSIRO and Charter Pacific Corporation Limited which was settled in September 1994, (a) were efforts made by either party to settle the dispute without substantial expenditure on legal costs; if so, what form did the efforts take, (b) did Charter Pacific write to the CSIRO in July 1992 seeking to settle the action at that time and (c) when the matter was finally resolved in September 1994, (i) were the final terms approved by the CSIRO Board and the Chief Executive Officer and (ii) was the professional legal advice available to the CSIRO consistent with the final settlement terms.(2) In relation to the current legal dispute between the CSIRO and Charter Pacific Corporation Limited, (a) have orders for indemnity costs been made against CSIRO; if so, what are the details and (b) what costs for the management of the discovery of documents have been incurred by the CSIRO to the date of answering this question.(3) Further to the answer to part (3) of question No 2862 (Hansard, 14 May 1998, page 3366), (a) on what basis is the conclusion drawn that a viable resolution would have to involve a full and permanent severance of relations between the parties, (b) is there documentary evidence to support the conclusion, (c) has the CSIRO attempted to resolve the action by offering a settlement on those terms; if not, why not and (d) is the expenditure on legal costs associated with the action consistent with the actual value of the intellectual property in contention.(4) Further to the answer to part (4) of question No. 2862, (a) did about 5 years elapse between the CSIRO entering contractual negotiations with Charter Pacific and a due diligence study being conducted; if so, what was the reason for the delay, (b) did the due diligence process involve the physical surveillance of any person associated with Charter Pacific; if so, what was the purpose of the surveillance and (c) was relevant information provided to the CSIRO as a result of the due diligence process; if not, why not.(5) In relation to the legal dispute between the CSIRO and the Cassegrain group, were tape recordings of conversations between senior officers of the CSIRO and members of the Cassegrain group produced in evidence in the Federal Court proceedings; if so, (a) who tape recorded the conversations and (b) were all the recordings made with the knowledge and consent of all persons present at the discussions; if not, what were the circumstances.6258Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Yes; discussions and a formal mediation.(b) No; however, I am advised that the company wrote a letter to the then Minister for Science, Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, in July 1992.(c) (i) The broad terms of the agreement were endorsed by the Board on 15 August 1994 and the final negotiated settlement accepted by the Chief Executive in September 1994.(c) (ii) All legal advice provided to CSIRO in the context of the settlement remains subject to legal professional privilege.(2) (a) Orders have not been made about the general costs of the action but an indemnity costs order against CSIRO was made on 29 August 1997 in relation to a specific application by CSIRO designed to protect the confidentiality of information relating to banknotes and other security documents which CSIRO had previously received from its licensees and their customers.(b) Costs incurred by CSIRO for the management of the discovery of documents in the current matter total $1,139,948.30 to date.(3) (a) Prerequisites for successful ongoing commercial relationships between parties normally include a reasonable level of trust between those parties; in the view of CSIRO, this prerequisite is not met in the case of Charter Pacific Corporation and is unlikely to exist in the period up to 2006 when present royalty arrangements expire because of the demonstrated propensity of the company to resort to litigation instead of normal methods of resolving differences of opinion.(b) Yes.(c) CSIRO has not offered any settlement on those or any other terms; it is inappropriate to comment on the terms upon which CSIRO might be prepared to allow Charter Pacific Corporation Limited to withdraw its action against CSIRO, for CSIRO to withdraw its counterclaim against the company and for all remaining relations between the parties to be severed; however, as a result of discussions between the parties' solicitors and otherwise the company is aware of CSIRO's position in this matter and is free to make an offer to CSIRO embodying those terms at any time; additionally, CSIRO expects that the court will order a routine mediation in due course and the mediation would normally provide a forum in which to consider settlement proposals.(d) No.(4) (a) No; the first due diligence was carried out by CSIRO into Charter Pacific Corporation in 1992 and was for the purpose of assessing Charter Pacific's appropriateness as a potential joint venture partner; a second due diligence exercise arose in the context of Charter Pacific having suggested in 1997 that it should become involved in the Exelgram business as more than a passive receiver of potential proceeds from the business; in the intervening period, CSIRO did not perceive any need for information on Charter Pacific that might be derived from a due diligence inquiry.(b) No; not to the knowledge of CSIRO or its legal advisers.(c) No; any information likely to have come out of the second due diligence ceased to be relevant once it became clear that any closer relationship between CSIRO and the company was unlikely to eventuate.(5) (a) (b) (c) A comprehensive answer to this question would require a detailed review of voluminous records associated with the relevant Federal Court proceedings conducted more than 5 years ago; the records are held in archives by CSIRO's solicitors in the matter, Blake Dawson Waldron; however the very substantial professional costs which would be incurred in retrieving and reviewing the records do not appear to be justified.6258(Question No. 3036)30366258Cobb, Michael, MPMr CobbMF4ParkesNP10 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1998:Will the Minister provide details of Aboriginals funded by the Commonwealth on overseas delegations in (a) 1996 and (b) 1997, including names, destinations, purposes, outcomes and costs.6258Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has provided the following information to the honourable member's question:ATSIC funded international travel for 1996/97 and 1997/98 is as follows*:ATSIC delegationsATSIC GrantsTotal1996/97$188,274$216,143$404,4171997/98$139,380$141,404$280,784Total$685,201* (data has been collated from the Commission's ledgers and through physical file searches in State and Regional Offices. Data in respect of purposes/outcomes of funded travel is not readily available through the automated system and would require extensive national file audits and is not considered cost effective).1996/1997 Financial Year—Overseas TravelPurpose of TravelName of TravellerTotal1. ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES 96/97a) COMMISSIONERSAttend Working Group for Indigenous Peoples Conference (WGIP) 14th Session—GenevaMarion HansenJoseph EluLois O'DonoghueSteve GordonAttend Human Rights Working Group (CHRWG2) Meeting—GenevaDes WilliamsAttend International Workshop on a Permanent Forum for Indigenous People in the United Nations System—Santiago, ChileTerry O'ShanePart of ATSIC/CAR Minerals Council of Australia—Visit to Canada and USALois O'DonoghueAttend the Indigenous Global Economic Conference—Calgary, CanadaSteve GordonAttend Maori Political Representation Conference—Wellington, NZJosie CrawshawAttend and Speak at the Maori Tourism Conference And Trade Show—Auckland, NZReg BirchAttend Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRB) Study Tour—North AmericaGeoff Clarkb) COUNCILLORSAttend "Beyond Tendancy" Seminar—Auckland, NZDarren MillerTotal Expenditure for Elected Representatives$123,284.662. STAFF MEMBERS 96/97Part of ATSIC/CAR Minerals Council of Australia Visit to Canada and USAPatricia TurnerBrian StaceyAttend Working Group for Indigenous Peoples conference (WGIP) 14th Session—GenevaGlenn ReesAttend Human Rights Working Group (CHRWG2) meeting—GenevaShane HoffmanAttend Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) Annual conference—Wellington, NZPaul WallisPatrick BathoAttend 7th Entrepreneurship Development Centre (EnDeC) World Conference—SingaporeIan MyersAttend Indigenous Global Conference—Calgary, CanadaGeoff RichardsonJohn CollyerAttend the World Indigenous Peoples Conference—New MexicoTony HansonTotal Expenditure for Staff Members$53,251.953. OTHER—SPONSORED BY ATSIC 96/97 Human Rights Working Group (CHRWG2), GenevaSubject specialist consultant$11,738.14Total Expenditure for ATSIC Representatives$188,274.754. ATSIC GRANTS96/97Purpose of TravelATSIC OfficeOrganisation SupportedTotalWorking Group On Indigenous Populations 14, July 1996Central IIHRNational Aboriginal & Islander Legal Services Secretariat$7,000Central IIHRCentral Land Council$7,000Central IIHRNSW Aboriginal Land Council$7,000Central IIHRNorthern Land Council$7,000Central IIHRMaar Land Council Aboriginal Corporation$7,000Central IIHRKimberley Land Council$7,000Commission on Human Rights Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Session 2, November 1996Central IIHRNational Aboriginal & Islander Legal Services Secretariat$7,000Central IIHRCentral Land Council$7,000Permanent Forum, Workshop, Chile, May 1997Central IIHRNational Aboriginal & Islander Legal Services Secretariat$6,000Central IIHRIndigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation$9,067BrisbaneQueensland Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services Secretariat$8,847Indigenous Conference in New Zealand 6-11 February 1997.PerthSwan Valley Nungah Community$9,000Atlanta (World Trade Fair) and Los Angeles (National Association of Music Merchant) in USA for promotional tour for Aboriginal music and products. January 1997PerthKwinana Rockingham Aboriginal Corporation$20,000North Americana Native Title Representative Bodies Study Tour—two weeks in June 97KalgoorlieYvonne Brownley—Goldfields Land Council$12,469Study tour to identify alternatives to custody. Activity was part of a grant provide to Dep. State Aboriginal Affairs, to monitor the implementation of RCIADIC recommendations.AdelaideAboriginal Justice Advocacy Committee$26,000 2 person Cultural tour to Californian Basket-weaving Association ConferenceAdelaideNgarrindjeri Lands and Progress Association$8,700Full time study grant recipient—study tour of USAAdelaideAboriginal Hostels$14,000 (salary) $1,088 (expenses)Study Tour of North American Indigenous groupsAdelaideMaralinga Tjarutja$11,500Malaysian InvitationalDarwinWomen's NT Basketball $1,220Australian Baseball in Prague—funding for 1 representativeTennant CreekAustralian Sports Com$4,252 96/97 Canadian Study TourVic.SOMirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corporation$18,00096/97 NZ Study TourVic.SOMirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corporation$10,000Total$216,1431997/1998 FINANCIAL YEAR—Overseas TravelPurpose of TravelName of TravellerTotal1. ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES 97/98COMMISSIONERSAttend Working Group for Indigenous Peoples conference (WGIP) 15th Session—GenevaGeoff ClarkTerry WaiaJosie CrawshawAttend Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRB) Working Group Study Tour—North AmericaGeoff ClarkAttend Human Rights Working Group (CHRWG3)—Session No. 3—Geneva/South AfricaGeoff ClarkAttend Indigenous Global Economic Conference—Calgary, CanadaSteve GordonAttend Biodiversity Workshop—MadridPreston ThomasAttend Maori Political Representation Conference in Wellington, New ZealandJosie CrawshawAttend and Speak at the Maori Tourism Conference and Trade Show in Auckland, New ZealandReg BirchTotal Expenditure for Commissioners$84,176.932. STAFF MEMBERS 97/98Attend Working Group for Indigenous Peoples conference (WGIP) 15th Session—GenevaPatricia TurnerAttend Biodiversity Workshop—MadridKerry SculthorpeAttend Human Rights Working Group (CHRWG3) Session No. 3—GenevaShane HoffmanAttend Conference on Racism—London, UKGlenn ReesTotal Expenditure for Staff Members$43,451.743. OTHER—SPONSORED BY ATSIC 97/98Human Rights Working Group (CHRWG3) Session No. 3—GenevaSubject specialist consultant$10,233.41Car Hire for Geneva—delegates attending CHRWG 3$1,518.29Total Expenditure of ATSIC Representatives$139,380.374. ATSIC GRANTS 97/98Purpose of TravelATSIC OfficeOrganisation SupportedTotalWGIP 15, July 1997Central IIHRNational Aboriginal & Islander Legal Services Secretariat$7,000Central IIHRTasmanian Aboriginal Centre$7,000Central IIHRFoundation Aboriginal & Islander Research Action$7,000Central IIHRNSW Aboriginal Land Council$7,000Central IIHRIndigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation$7,000BrisbaneQAILSS$8,218CHRWG3, November 1997Central IIHRNational Aboriginal & Islander Legal Services Secretariat$11,280Central IIHRIndigenous Woman Aboriginal Corporation$8,958Central IIHRTasmanian Aboriginal Centre$8,575Central IIHRFoundation Aboriginal & Islander Research Action$11,280Traditional Knowledge and Biodiversity Workshop, Madrid, November 1997Central IIHRTourism Manjimup Aboriginal Corporation$20,000Central IIHRNational Aboriginal & Islander Legal Services Secretariat$14,324Cost associated with delegation travel to UK for return of Yagan's headWA SOWA Aboriginal Affairs Dept$10,000Travel assistance to Glenyse Ward to attend the International Arts Festival, New ZealandBroomeMamabulanjin Aboriginal Corporation$500Malaysian Art & Culture Excursion for 4 studentsTennant CreekJulalikari Council AC$6,000New Zealand Cultural Exchange-Womens BusinessQueanbeyanMatong Merringanna AC$6,000Trade fairs in America, Europe and London to promote art products produced by Tobwabba Art.LismoreForster Local Aboriginal Land Council$10,000Midososuji Parade Osaka, JapanBrisbaneKalwun$23,200Naomi Stanley—Fiji Sports grantTownsvilleTAIMA$3,069Total$141,4046262(Question No. 3050)30506262McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 22 June 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to comments by Mr Martin Doolan, chief executive of Dental Health Services Victoria in its March 1998 newsletter that more adult concession card holders were having their teeth extracted than a year ago and that the loss of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program was certainly a major factor.(2) Will he investigate whether the number of teeth extractions is increasing as a result of the loss of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program with a view to taking appropriate remedial action.6262Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) No. This is a matter for the Victorian Government.6262(Question No. 3053)30536262Lee, Michael, MPMr LeeMG4DobellALP00 asked the Minister for Family Services, upon notice, on 22 June 1998:(1) What is the Government's position on the importance of the Safety House Program.(2) What sum did the Commonwealth provide to Safety House Australia Inc. in each financial year since 1992-93.(3) Did the Government abolish ongoing funding for Safety House Australia from 1997-98; if so, why.(4) Did the Government subsequently approve a one-off grant of $100 000 to Safety House Austral ia; if so, was the decision to abandon ongoing funding soundly based.(5) What provision has been made for the continuing operation of Safety House Australia Inc. in 1998-99.6263Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government is aware of the important community service provided by Safety House Australia. It is a good example of co-operative community based activity with benefits for Australian families and their children.(2) The Commonwealth provided a one-off grant of $100 000 in December 1997 for the national secretariat activities of Safety House Australia Incorporated only for the 1997-98 financial year. The National Association of Safety House Australia Incorporated was formed in February 1993 with sponsorship from the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited. This sponsorship terminated at the end of 1996.(3) No. The grant of $100 000 for the national secretariat activities of Safety House Australia Incorporated was one-off for the 1997-98 financial year.(4) See Answer (3) above.(5) In accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant, no further provision has been made by the Department of Health and Family Services for 1998-99. In a Letter of Acceptance of grant conditions in January 1998 from the Board of Management of Safety House Australia Incorporated, it was agreed that the grant of $100 000 was to provide one-off financial support to the national secretariat to enable the organisation to work towards becoming financially self sufficient and plan for income generation. The organisation is to report to the Commonwealth by 30 August 1998 on how this grant has been used.6263(Question No. 3055)30556263Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 22 June 1998:Have changes been made to flight paths for aircraft departing from Essendon Airport since 1 September 1997; if so, (i) what are the details and (ii) why were the changes made.6263Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia advises that there have been no changes to flight paths for aircraft departing from Essendon Airport since 1 September 1997. 6263(Question No. 3058)30586263Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 June 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 578 (Hansard , 18 November 1996, page 7035), has his Department produced an estimate of the underlying Commonwealth budget bottom line measured on an expenditure tax basis; if so, what did the figures show regarding the net budget contribution to national saving.6263Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Department of the Treasury does not produce budget estimates on an expenditure tax basis.6263(Question No. 3061)30616263Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 June 1998:(1) What human rights issues were placed on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Perth on 16-17 April 1998 by each Attorney-General.(2) What was the outcome of each item on the agenda.(3) Where and when will the next meeting of the Standing Committee be held.6263Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth's written report, placed before the April meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, referred to a number of human right issues. These include:. the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;. ILO Convention 169, (Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989));. the Commission on Human Rights;. the Optional Protocol to the Torture Convention;. the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);. the Fourth World Conference on Women;. possible optional protocols to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;. complaints under International Communications Procedures;. reporting under International Communications Procedures; . the joint ALRC/HREOC reference on Children and the Legal System;. the Inquiry into the Removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children;. the development of Australia's National Policy in respect of Discrimination in Employment and occupation under ILO Convention No 111 (1958)Other matters included:. Disability Discrimination legislation and Disability Standards;. the review of exemptions in subsections 40(2) and 40(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984;. the reform of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;. co-operative arrangements with the States;. the SCAG Working Group on Human Rights;. the Human Rights Forum for Non Government Organisations;. the Decade of Human Rights Education; and. the review of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.(2) These items were placed on the agenda by the Commonwealth in the context of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Human Rights Paper. This paper serves to inform States and Territories about the activities of the Commonwealth in this area. Matters raised in the Human Rights Paper were noted by State and Territory Attorneys-General.(3) The next meeting is scheduled to be held in Adelaide on 29—30 October 1998.6264(Question No. 3064)30646264Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:(1) Has Commonwealth funding been withdrawn from Australian Youth Policy Action Coalition (AYPAC); if so, why.(2) What sum in Commonwealth funding did AYPAC receive in (a) 1993-94, (b) 1994-95, (c) 1995-96, (d) 1996-97 and (e) 1997-98.(3) Will AYPAC be replaced by a youth forum; if so, (a) what sum will the Commonwealth provide to fund the forum and (b) how will the new system improve the way in which the interests of young persons are promoted in Australia. 6264Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) AYPAC' triennial funding contract with the Commonwealth concluded on 30 June 1998. The Government recently reviewed funding that it provides for secretariat services through peak organisations. The Government has considered the available options for consulting young people and has decided to direct funding towards a new initiative titled Voices of Youth.(2) (a) AYPAC received Commonwealth core funding of $327,600 in 1993/94. An additional grant of $60,000 was provided to AYPAC to stage Youth Gathering `94.(b) AYPAC received Commonwealth core funding of $337,400 in 1994-95.(c) AYPAC received Commonwealth core funding of $347,500 in 1995-96. An additional grant of $60,000 was provided to AYPAC to state a Biennial Youth Gathering in 1996.(d) AYPAC received Commonwealth core funding of $368,551 in 1996-97.(e) AYPAC received Commonwealth core funding of $336,008 in 1997-98.(3) AYPAC is not being replaced. The Youth Roundtables are one of the components of Voices of Youth initiative which provides alternative means whereby young people can ensure their views and concerns are heard by Government. The Youth Roundtables will have 50 members aged between 15 and 24. They will advise the Government on a variety of youth issues including employment, education, health, youth suicide, and youth services.Further elements of the Voices of Youth initiative include providing financial support to the YMCA National and State/Territory Youth Parliaments to enable broader participation by young people. The Youth Parliaments provide a forum for participants to learn about their Parliamentary system, and to develop skills in debating, team work, leadership and research. The YMCA Youth Parliaments are held annually in most States and biennially at the national level.In addition, the web site for young people, The Source, for which the Government has provided $110,000 for the design, testing and promotion, significantly enhances the Government's capacity to communicate with young people and for young people to communicate direction with the Government.Last year the Government provided funding of $3.6m to establish a network of 43 Youth Officers, in the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). The Youth Officers provide feedback to the Government on youth issues and the impact of Government initiatives on young people.To ensure the views of all young Australians are represented, the Government will be looking to the Youth Bureau of DEETYA to consult directly with peak bodies representing young people across the country.(a) Funding of $200,000 has been allocated to the Youth Roundtables. Funding of $30,000 has been allocated to support the YMCA Youth Parliaments.(b) The Government is committed to ensuring that young Australians are given a stronger voice to Government by consulting directly with them. The Government's new initiative, Voices of Youth, will improve consultation processes and enable direct communications between policy makers and young people.6265(Question No. 3065)30656265Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:(1) Has his attention been drawn to television coverage of recent unrest in Indonesia showing a group of Indonesian soldiers armed with AUG Steyr rifles.(2) Were the rifles supplied by Australia; if so, (a) were they made by the factory at Lithgow, NSW, (b) how many were supplied and (c) what sum did Indonesia pay for them.6265Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware that the Indonesian Armed Forces possess Steyr rifles.(2) Australian-produced Steyr Mannlicher Rifles have not been sold to Indonesia.6265(Question No. 3067)30676265Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:How many members of the Australian Defence Force who (a) enlisted before 15 May 1985, (b) had an unused Defence Service Homes (DSH) Entitlement and (c) were serving on HMAS Sydney during the revocation period from March to August 1991 (i) accepted and (ii) did not accept the offer to revoke their DSH entitlement for the Defence Home Owner Scheme.6265Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BishopSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Of the 260 Australian Defence Force personnel who were on board HMAS Sydney during the period March to August 1991:(a) 156 had enlisted before 15 May 1985.(b) and (c) 78 had an unused Defence Service Homes Loan entitlement, and served on board HMAS Sydney some time during the period 1 March 1991 to 31 August 1991, when surrender of their Defence Service Homes Loan entitlement in favour of the Defence HomeOwner Scheme was allowed. (i) 18 of the 78 personnel elected to surrender their Defence Service Homes Loan entitlement, and (ii) 60 did not accept the offer to surrender their entitlement to the Defence Service Homes Loan.6265(Question No. 3068)30686265Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 June 1998:In each State and Territory, how many pastoral leases are held (a) in total, (b) by foreign companies and (c) by family firms, families or individual farmers actually involved in primary production.6265Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I refer the honourable member to my answer to question No. 2569, printed in Hansard on 4 March 1998 (pages 506—508) in relation to pastoral lease holdings.6265(Question No. 3069)30696265Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 1998:(1) How many veterans were receiving a disability pension at the (a) totally and permanently incapacitated (TPI) or special, (b) intermediate and (c) extreme disablement adjustment (EDA) rate on (i) 31 December 1995, (ii) 31 December 1996 and (iii) 31 December 1997.(2) What benefits and concessions in addition to standard pensioner concessions are provided by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) State or Territory governments to (i) TPI, (ii) intermediate and (iii) EDA rate disability pensioners.(3) What is the estimated annual cost of the additional benefits and concessions referred to in part (2).6265Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The following table indicates the numbers of veterans receiving above General Rate pensions as at the dates indicated: Rate31 December 199531 December 199631 December 1997Special Rate193152062520766Intermediate Rate951999991EDA Rate436063086709Totals246262793228466(2) Concessions extended to TPI, EDA and Intermediate Rate veterans by State and Territory governments vary and the details are not available. In addition to the standard pensioner concessions available to pensioner concession cardholders, the only concessions understood to be available from the Commonwealth to these veterans are the concessions granted over Commonwealth owned rail track on the Indian Pacific, Overland and Ghan journeys, now operated by Great Southern Railway Ltd. TPI, EDA and Intermediate Rate pensioners all enjoy additional but limited travel on these routes. Clarification of these entitlements with the new owners, however, is still under discussion. It may also be noted that TPI pensioners also enjoy Sales Tax exemptions from the Commonwealth on the purchase of motor vehicles and spare parts.(3) The cost to the Commonwealth of concessions granted to veterans for travel on former AN services in the 1996/97 financial year was $311, 189. Additionally, Commonwealth revenue was forgone due to the Sales Tax exemptions provided to TPI pensioners but this detail is not known as the Australian Taxation Office does not separately record this information. The cost to State or Territory Governments of concessions granted to veterans would have to be sought from the State or Territory governments concerned. It should be noted that there is a Special Purpose Payment by the Commonwealth to State and Territory Governments for the provision of concessions. This is intended to cover all core concessions including those granted to DVA pensioners on the TPI, EDA and Intermediate Rates. The 1998/99 budget appropriation for this is $151,891,000.6266(Question No. 3070)30706266Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 1998:(1) Does his Department purchase its mailing services from Security Mailing Services Pty Ltd.(2) Was Security Mailing Services engaged to mail letters to all recipients of war widows' pensions informing them of changed indexation arrangements for their pension; if so, (a) how many letters were sent, (b) were all letters signed by him and (c) did he decide to sign the letters after the mailing process had commenced; if so, what was the additional cost incurred by his Department as a result of the decision.6266Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) Yes. (a) 97,721 letters were sent. (b) Yes, by facsimile signature. (c) No. However, the letters were printed on incorrect letterhead and required alteration to the salutation. The cost of reprinting was $8,950.74.6266(Question No. 3072)30726266Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 1998:(1) Is it a fact that his Department (a) informed the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during its consideration of estimates that as at 9 June 1998 the Department had spent $184,850 on research as part of the Government's promised anti-racism campaign for which a provision of $5 million was made in the 1997-98 budget and (b) indicated at page 68 of its portfolio budget statements for 1998-99 that $4.639 million was carried over to the 1998-99 Budget representing an expenditure of $361,000 in 1997-98.(2) What sum has his Department spent on the anti-racism campaign to the date of answering this question and how has it been spent.6266Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It is a fact that my Department:(a) informed the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee during its consideration of estimates that as at 9 June 1998 the Department had spent $184,850 on research as part of an anti-racism campaign for which a provision of $5 million was made in the 1996/97 Budget (not 1997/98 as stated in the question); and(b) indicated at page 68 of its portfolio budget statement for 1998/99 that $4.639 million was carried over to the 1998/99 Budget. This was, however, a preliminary estimated figure. The final carry-over figure into 1998/99 should be $4.521 million.(2) To 30 June 1998, my Department has spent a total of $478,588 on the anti-racism campaign. A breakdown for the two financial years follows:1996/97$Travel, office and staff development expenses8,856Project development and administration costs127,144Sub-total:136,0001997/98Travel, office and staff development expenses13,590Project development and administration costs144,148Market research consultancy184,850Sub-total:342,588The total expenditure for the period from 1 July 1998 to the date of answering this question (15 July 1998) is not yet available, but is expected to be insignificant.6267(Question No. 3073)30736267Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 29 June 1998:(1) Is it a fact that (a) the Internet Service Provider (ISP) industry is a small business growth industry in Australia and (b) the Government promotes itself as a champion of small business.(2) Is it also a fact that (a) Telstra is the only Internet Access Provider (IAP) with the infrastructure throughout regional Australia through which ISPs can access the network, (b) no other IAPs allow ISPs to access their regional nodes and (c) Telstra is in direct competition with local ISPs for the provision of Internet services in many parts of regional Australia; if so, does the potential exist for Telstra to misuse its position in the regional Internet market.(3) What legislative and administrative safeguards exist apart from recourse to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to ensure that Internet providers like Telstra act appropriately in the regional Internet market place.(4) Are local ISPs able to complain about Telstra services to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman; if not, why not.(5) Within the terms of the telecommunications provisions of the Trade Practices Act, how does the ACCC (a) define the Internet service delivery market and (b) classify organisation as IAPs or ISPs.(6) How will the competition notices issued by the ACCC to Telstra benefit regional ISPs. (7) Will he direct the ACCC to investigate Telstra's interconnectivity charging policies in regional Internet markets; if not, why not.(8) Will he ensure that Telstra does not impose timed local calls upon ISPs for incoming data calls.(9) Is it inconsistent for Telstra to charge ISPs on the basis of volume of data used but offer individual clients a flat rate of $44 per month for unlimited Internet access.6267Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) (a) The ISP industry may be regarded as a small business growth industry. Various reports place the number of ISPs in Australia at between 500 and 850, most of which fall into the small business category (ie less than 20 employees). The number of ISPs has grown significantly from an estimated 200 in January 1996.(b) The vast majority of Australian businesses are small. They comprise about 95 per cent of private businesses and number about 900 000. The Federal Government recognises the important role these businesses play, both economically and socially. The Office of Small Business in the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business has been established as focal point for pursuing Government policy outcomes that benefit, or do not adversely impact upon, the small business sector.The Office seeks to improve the business-operating environment for small business, and is responsible for:. providing policy advice to the Government on small business issues; . building and maintaining effective links with industry, small business organisations, and State and Territory and overseas governments;. implementing and fostering the Government's small business initiatives; and. developing an electronic single access point to government business information.(2) (a) While Telstra has the most geographically extensive Internet `backbone', the networks of other IAPs extend to some regional areas. Regional ISPs may also connect to IAPs other than Telstra's Big Pond Direct, either by dial-up connections at telephony rates or permanent connections by means of leased lines. Which carrier or carriage service provider an ISP approaches for these connections is a matter for the ISP to decide.(b) No. IAPs other than Telstra do allow ISPs to access their regional `nodes'. Regional ISPs can approach other IAPs to explore alternative means of connecting to the Internet.(c) Telstra's Big Pond retail units are in direct competition with local ISPs for the provision of Internet services to end users all over Australia, not only in regional Australia. Telstra has advised, however, that it clearly delineates between its IAP business and its ISP businesses. According to Telstra, its ISP businesses acquire carriage and access services from its IAP business on the same terms as are available to any other ISP. As such, Telstra suggests its ISP businesses face the same cost structures as any other Australian ISP with similar economies of scale.The ACCC has provided the comment that the potential always exists for companies with market power to misuse that power. Telstra has a degree of market power in regional markets for the provision of Internet services. If it should misuse that market power for an illegal purpose, it is open to action under the various laws of Australia including telecommunications specific legislation.(3) The regulatory framework which was introduced with open competition on 1 July 1997 brought the regulation of competition in the telecommunications industry more closely into line with general trade practices law. All participants in the telecommunications industry are fully subject to the restrictive trade practices provisions contained in Part IV of the Trade Practice Act 1974 (the TPA). The post 97 legislation, however, recognises the scope for Telstra, and other incumbent operators, to engage in anti-competitive conduct. Consequently, there are a number of important mechanisms built into the framework to facilitate vigorous but fair competition. These include a telecommunications access regime, industry-specific anti-competitive conduct regulation, and mechanisms to enable customers to `pre-select' their preferred service provider.The telecommunications access regime, which is contained in Part XIC of the TPA, establishes clear, legislated access rights for competing service providers to specific carriage services and related services, and establishes mechanisms within which the terms and conditions of access can be determined. The regime is administered by the ACCC and is intended to reduce the market power of those owning or controlling important infrastructure or services which are necessary for competitive services to be supplied to users.In recognition of the continued market power of incumbent operators, the regulatory framework includes industry-specific provisions for regulating anti-competitive conduct which are contained in Part XI B of the TPA. Under these provisions, the ACCC is able to issue a competition notice to a carrier or carriage service provider which has engaged in anti-competitive conduct. Where such a notice is issued, the ACCC is able to seek pecuniary penalties and a third party will be able to seek damages—if the carrier or service provider continues to engage in the specified conduct.As the competition regulator, it is appropriate that the ACCC be primarily responsible for addressing allegations of the misuse of market power by Telstra.(4) No. Only end-users, specifically residential and small business telecommunications consumers, can have grievances investigated by the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO). The Telecommunications Act 1997 requires all carriers and carriage service providers (including ISPs) to participate in the TIO scheme. ISPs, therefore, participate in the TIO scheme as service providers supplying end users, rather than as intermediate customers of carriers.This is primarily because the TIO is intended to operate as a scheme to help consumers and small business, not as a dispute resolution forum for telecommunications suppliers. Complaints about alleged anti-competitive issues are normally most appropriately dealt with by the ACCC and about other matters by the ACA.(5) (a) The ACCC has advised that, as outlined in its information paper, "Anti-competitive Conduct in Telecommunications Markets", it defines markets according to the circumstances dictated by the various investigations it undertakes. This approach derives from the fact that a particular market definition which is pertinent to one investigation may not be applicable in another. Consequently, an ACCC definition of the `Internet service delivery market' is dependent on the particular service being provided, the functional level (wholesale or retail) at which the particular service is provided, whether there are substitutes to the service readily available, the geographic boundaries of a proposed market, the period of time in which the market might be said to exist and, in some cases, on where the effects of particular types of behaviour are being felt.(b) The ACCC has advised that it classifies organisations as particular types of service provider based on the service in question and with regard to its discussions with the participants in the marketplace and other industry stakeholders. The Competition Notices served on Telstra on 28 May and 17 June 1998 related to its failure to pay IAPs for `access provider services' provided by IAPs while charging those same IAPs for `access provider services' provided to them by Telstra.For the purpose of those Notices and following extensive discussion with the industry, the ACCC(i) defined ISPs as the operators of local or regional communications networks from which end users and content providers (the owners of websites) access other similar networks; and(ii) defined IAPs as the operators of the high speed broadband `backbone' networks for interconnecting the ISP networks in Australia, and having `nodes', or points of interconnection in the major mainland capital cities.(6) The ACCC has advised that the Notices served on Telstra have resulted in it reaching Internet interconnection agreements with the other three major Australian IAPs. The agreements will substantially lower the costs each of those IAPs incur in providing Internet `backbone' service to ISPs. The savings made as a result of lower costs are apparently already being passed on to ISPs in the form of lower charges for using the major IAP backbones. This has increased competition amongst IAPs for ISP traffic. Regional ISPs are expected to benefit from this increased competition by being able to pick and choose from a wider range of IAPs now able to compete with Telstra for regional ISP business.(7) Interconnection prices are, in the first instance, a matter for commercial negotiation between the parties. Should service providers seeking access to relevant services be unable to reach agreement on the price-related terms and conditions of access, they may approach the ACCC to investigate the matter and take appropriate action under the general or telecommunications specific trade practices provisions. Concerned ISPs also have certain rights to take private action where they believe conduct breaches relevant provisions.(8) The Government has prepared draft regulations under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (the Act) to prevent compulsory B-Party charging by carriage service providers of calls to ISPs from residential and charity customers to access the Internet. The Government would not wish to see undermined its legislated guarantee that residential and charity customers have an untimed local call option for data calls.The Act mandates an untimed local call option for residential voice and data calls, and business voice calls—but not for business data calls. The Government has taken this approach to business data calls on the basis that business users of services have a greater ability to pay for the services they use and should be expected to do so. It is not in anyone's long term interests to establish cross-subsidies that may potentially impact on residential users of telecommunications services. The B-Party charging draft regulations do not, therefore, include business data calls, because the Act does not preclude carriage service providers from charging such calls on a timed basis to the A-Party.(9) It is not inconsistent for IAPs to charge ISPs a volume based rate while charging individuals a flat rate. It is common practice within the Internet industry for providers to have more than one price which they offer their various clients the different services they provide. The service provided by an IAP to an individual is different to that provided to an ISP and involves different costs and different economies of scale and scope. Differing costs associated with the different product allow providers to set different prices for those products.Introductory offers are commonplace, as are volume-based discounts, special deals, unbundled pricing and flat rate offers, some of which are up to a year in advance. The variation in pricing packages is consistent with a competitive market where each of the players strive to differentiate their products from those of their competitors.6269(Question No. 3076)30766269Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 July 1998:Has the Australian Taxation Office received complaints about the Australian National Aviation College; if so, are the complaints being investigated.6269Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:Privacy provisions prevent the Australian Taxation Office from commenting on the affairs of individual taxpayers.6269(Question No. 3078)30786269McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 1 July 1998:(1) What procedures exist for the governments of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories to assess the extent to which the Australian law and practice is in compliance with the provisions of unratified conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).(2) Has a work plan been developed for the ratification of ILO conventions as a result of the assessment process referred to in part (1); if so, what is the work plan.(3) Has the Government received recommendations regarding the ratification of ILO conventions as a result of the assessment process or work plan; if so, which conventions have been recommended for ratification.6270Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Commonwealth, State and Territory Labour Ministers adopted a Resolution in 1949 (which has been updated a number of times) that provides a framework for consultation on International Labour Organisation (ILO) matters. The Resolution in its current form makes flexible provisions for the consultative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. (A copy of the Resolution has been provided for the honourable Member's information.) It was endorsed by the Labour Ministers' Council on 1 May 1998. The Resolution includes procedures for fulfilling Australia's obligation in relation to Article 19 of the ILO Constitution. That article sets out a process for federations. In Australia's case, this means that newly adopted instruments that are appropriate for action by the various governments in the federation must be submitted to the Commonwealth Parliament within 18 months of their adoption. Those instruments must also be referred to the States and Territories for consideration by them of appropriate action. Australia must report at appropriate intervals as requested by the ILO on the extent to which Australian law and practice conforms with unratified Conventions. All State and Territory Governments are invited to contribute to Australia's periodic reports under Article 19.(2) No.(3) Not applicable.6270(Question No. 3079)30796270McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 1 July 1998:On what dates, in what form and with what outcomes did the federal Government last consult with State and Territory governments on the ratification of ILO conventions (a) 141—Rural Workers' Organisations, 1975 and (b) 151—Labour Relations (Public Service), 1978.6270Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) On 1 April 1996, Convention No.141 was discussed at a meeting of Commonwealth, State and Territory officials responsible for ILO matters (Technical Officers). At that meeting it was noted that New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have agreed to ratification. It was also noted that no other State had identified any difficulties with compliance and most were considering seeking formal agreement to ratification. Formal advice from those States to that effect has not been provided. On 26 March 1997, I wrote to all State and Territory Labour Ministers to confirm this.(b) Convention No.151 was also discussed at the Commonwealth, State and Territory Technical Officers' meeting on 1 April 1996. At that meeting the Commonwealth indicated that, in light of advice received from the ILO concerning the interpretation of Convention No.151, the Commonwealth had to review its position in relation to the Convention. The ILO advice casts doubt on Australia's capacity to demonstrate compliance. To assist the review, the Commonwealth sought reports from the States and Territories on their compliance status. The reports have not been provided.6270(Question No. 3082)30826270McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:(1) Has the treaty ratification task force completed a review of unratified ILO conventions.(2) Did the task force consider any conventions to be suitable targets for ratification; if so, (a) which conventions and (b) what action will the Government take in each case.6270Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government does not have a Treaty Ratification Task Force.6270(Question No. 3084)30846270McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:Has the Government allocated additional funding for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel rods from the research reactor at Lucas Heights, NSW; if so, (a) what additional sum has been allocated and (b) why was it allocated.6271Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government announced on 3 September 1997 that it had allocated $88 million for the shipment overseas, and reprocessing, of spent fuel arising from the operation of the HIFAR reactor at Lucas Heights. No additional funds have been allocated since that time.6271(Question No. 3085)30856271McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:Has the British Government indicated that it intends to either withdraw from or scale back its activities in the area of nuclear reprocessing; if so, what will be the consequences for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel rods at the Lucas Heights reactor.6271Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:On 5 June 1998, the UK Government announced that there would be no new contracts for commercial reprocessing at Dounreay, Scotland. This announcement relates only to activities at Dounreay—it does not affect reprocessing activities undertaken elsewhere in the UK.The announcement does not affect the 114 spent fuel elements shipped to Dounreay in 1996, as these fuel elements have already been processed. It does, however, mean that Australia has to utilise the services of another organisation for reprocessing the balance of the spent fuel, which is of UK-origin. Action to do so is in train.6271(Question No. 3086)30866271McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:(1) Has the Government received reports on the success of the 1998 World Expo in Lisbon, Portugal; if so, (a) what do the reports reveal about the trading and tourist opportunities which were available to exploit at that Expo.(2) Given that Australia was unsuccessful in its bid to host Expo 2002 on the Gold Coast, will Australia participate in the Year 2000 Expo in Hanover. 6271Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The German Government was advised in December 1997 of Australia's intention to participate in Expo 2000.6271(Question No. 3108)31086271Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:(1) Will he provide a list of federal electoral divisions in which funds have been received under the Jobs Pathway program in each round since 2 March 1996 showing (a) the sum received under the program; and (b) the percentage rate of youth unemployment in the electoral division.(2) Will he provide a list showing the percentage rate of youth unemployment during the period referred to in part (1) in electoral divisions which did not receive funds under the program.(3) Will he provide precise details of (a) the selection process for successful program brokers; and (b) his or his office's involvement in the selection process.6271Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No program administered by my Department is funded on the basis of federal electoral division. With regard to the Jobs Pathway Program (JPP), there have been two tender rounds since this Government came to Office in 1996: 1996-97 and 1997-98.(a) A meaningful break down of funding by electorate is not possible for two reasons: funding decisions for JPP are not made by electorate and the brokers have been contracted to provide assistance to students up to an agreed target for a region which may cover more than one electorate. However, I have asked the Department to map the provision of JPP services across to federal electorates and the attached table shows the number of schools in each electorate at which students are receiving (or have received) assistance from a JPP broker.(b) Information about the percentage rate of youth unemployment by electorate is not routinely maintained by my Department. However, the Parliamentary Library has recently compiled a set of data for each electorate that includes the percentage rate of youth unemployment which has been derived from the 1996 Census data. This information is included in the attached table. (2) There are six federal electorates in which assistance under JPP has note been available: Cook, Gilmore and Throsby in NSW, Fairfax and Fisher in Queensland, and Franklin in Tasmania. Information about the percentage rate of youth unemployment by electorate is not routinely maintained by my Department. However, the Parliamentary Library has recently compiled a set of data for each electorate that includes the percentage rate of youth unemployment which has been derived from the 1996 Census data. This information is also included in the attached table.(3) I have directed my Department to provide information about the general nature of the selection process used for both 1996-97 and 1997-98 only. This general information is attached. Neither I nor my office have had any involvement in the selection process for the Jobs Pathway Program.JOBS PATHWAY PROGRAMNUMBER OF SCHOOLS BY ELECTORATE AT WHICH STUDENTS HAVE BEEN ASSISTED DURING 1996/97 & 1997/98 Number of SchoolsState or TerritoryElectorate1996/971997/98Youth U/E (%)NSWBanks312.5Barton214.3Bennelong79.7Berowra118.7Blaxland1920.7Bradfield127.9Calare212121.0Charlton61021.9Chifley161121.2Cook9.4Cowper71127.2Cunningham1125.2Dobell5420.6Eden-Monaro1520.7Farrer71521.3Fowler131229.1Gilmore21.8Grayndler41219.5Greenway14514.9Gwydir727.6Hughes138.9Hume42420.4Hunter2422.7Kingsford-Smith114.3Lindsay101016.5Lowe12813.8Lyne925.9Macarthur6616.9Mackellar78.1Macquarie131316.6Mitchell1417.7New England2522.7Newcastle71029.9North Sydney159.3Page161526.2Parkes8921.7Parramatta161212.3Paterson8822.7Prospect151016.6Reid3721.4Richmond111323.8Riverina122217.1Robertson1219.4Shortland1522.5Sydney3621.0Throsby26.5Warringah127.9Watson117.8Wentworth114.5Werriwa171820.6VictoriaAston8213.0Ballarat1822.6Batman1825.0Bendigo825.7Bruce15315.6Burke51020.6Calwell9521.6Casey101414.8Chisholm5117.9Corangamite11418.9Corio1226.8Deakin5615.4Dunkley11919.7Flinders8915.4Gellibrand71428.8Gippsland721.6Goldstein7812.9Higgins316.7Holt10619.5Hotham3618.1Indi91819.5Isaacs5617.4Jaga Jaga2717.6Kooyong413.0Lalor11019.8La Trobe4514.7Mallee13017.7Maribyrnong121222.5McEwen101117.8McMillan2423.4Melbourne3327.1Melbourne Ports4521.3Menzies1313.3Murray131118.5Scullin11019.5Wannon1921.6Wills4323.5QLDBowman13416.9Brisbane819.2Capricornia121.4Dawson11215.5Dickson8614.9Fadden8615.4Fairfax22.2Fisher25.6Forde7922.3Griffith1016.8Groom161920.1Herbert719.2Hinkler91422.0Kennedy31316.5Leichhardt1714.6Lilley9318.2Longman621.1Maranoa122017.0McPherson111120.4Moncrieff191021.5Moreton10618.3Oxley8921.8Petrie11518.8Rankin5722.0Ryan115.7Wide Bay9625.1WABrand5618.9Canning61416.4Cowan2412.8Curtin614.9Forrest10916.0Fremantle515.7Kalgoorlie6712.7Moore5814.0O'Connor52015.4Pearce3813.3Perth4818.7Stirling3516.0Swan51018.1Tangney4711.5SAAdelaide151323.9Barker1719.7Bonython10731.6Boothby81018.4Grey727.0Hindmarsh9920.1Kingston523.6Makin141018.8Mayo11217.5Port Adelaide7724.0Sturt21122.1Wakefield4520.4TasmaniaBass3623.0Braddon21423.6Denison1022.1Franklin23.2Lyons624.9NTNorthern Territory316.8ACTCanberra81718.1Fraser41018.6Namadgi41017.91996-97 Jobs Pathway Program—Tender Process. For the 1996-97 round, the focus of the Program was on assisting those school leavers, who had successfully completed their Year 12 studies and had undertaken vocational education courses as part of their Year 11 and Year 12 studies, to obtain employment, including traineeships and apprenticeships, and provide advice and support over the first year of their placement.. Given the relatively low numbers of Year 11 and 12 students participating in vocational education courses, the Department adopted a selective tendering process, choosing organisations recommended by its Area Offices as having the potential to become JPP brokers. These organisations were invited to submit tenders.. The criteria for determining which regions received priority for funding under JPP for 1996-97 were that there should be sufficient numbers of students undertaking a school based vocational education programs and that appropriately qualified brokers existed to deliver the program. Quantification of the numbers of students participating in school based vocational education programs was drawn from the survey performed by the Australian Council for Educational Research on behalf of the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation.. Tenders were assessed against the objectives of the program and for consistency with the national strategic objectives in vocational education and training. The principle of value for money was applied through this process.. Contracts were executed with 40 organisations to manage 42 projects.1997-98 Jobs Pathway Program—Tender ProcessFor the 1997-98 round, the focus of the program was expanded to providing assistance to school leavers to find and sustain employment as well as to work with those students who would otherwise leave school without completing their year 12 studies, with a view to encouraging them to remain at school.An open and competitive tender process was adopted and tenders were called through advertisements in the national and major regional press on 7 and 11 June 1997. Organisations wishing to tender had a six week period to 18 July 1997. Copies of the tender documentation could be downloaded from the DEETYA Home Page on the Internet.. The tender documentation clearly specified the: - objectives of the program (section 3); - range of services that are expected to be provided by brokers (section 4); - outcomes expected (section 5); - use of placement and retention targets as a measure of performance (section 6); - roles and responsibilities of both DEETYA and brokers (section 7); - funding and reporting arrangements (section 8); and - tender process (section 9).. Section 9.2 clearly specified the outcomes that we were seeking from the tender process, namely quality brokerage services, quality vocational guidance, open competition, value for money and ethical and fair dealings, accountability and impartiality.. Section 9.3 specified how tenderers should define a region for JPP for 1997-98. It clearly indicated that the final shape of each region may vary according to a number of factors including the number of schools, numbers of students, level of participation in VET programs, Year 12 completion rates, level of youth unemployment and the broker's capacity to deliver the services. Tenderers were asked to nominate their region by specifying the schools that they intended to work with if successful. The tender document clearly indicated our intention to contract some 70 brokers/regions for 1997-98 and clearly states the intention to rank regions nominated by tenderers. The basis for ranking was stated as youth unemployment and Year 12 completion rate. A typical size region was specified and allowance made for schools in smaller communities (regional and remote) to tender and receive the same level of consideration as tenders from more typical regions.. Section 9.5 stated that tenders would undergo an initial assessment by DEETYA officers with knowledge of each region—this initial assessment took place in the DEETYA State Offices. The ranking of regions and subsequent shortlisting of tenders took place in DEETYA National Office. The final shortlisting took account of value for money and potential overlaps between regions.. Negotiations with shortlisted tenders were undertaken to confirm the region/s nominated and the targets proposed for job placement and school retention. Contracts were executed with 63 organisations to manage 68 projects.6277(Question No. 3110)31106277Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:(1) Are part (6) of the answer to question No. 2596 (Hansard , 22 June 1998, page 5073) and part (20) of the answer to question No. 2918 (Hansard , 22 June 1998, page 5073) contradictory; if so, which is correct.(2) Do the minutes of the GMAC meetings identified in part (16) of the answer to question No. 2918 state or note that the GMAC members identified in the question stood aside from the discussions about plants carrying viral genes; if so, do the minutes state that the GMAC members stood aside (a) in every one of the meetings and (b) from every one of the discussions.(3) Are GMAC members (a) directly involved in projects to develop genetically engineered organisms or (b) employed by organisations, institutions or companies involved in projects to develop genetically engineered organisms; if so, (a) which GMAC members, (b) which organisations, institutions and companies and (c) what kinds of genetically modified organisms.6277Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) While none of the GMAC members are practising plant virologists or experts in plant virus recombination, two members are sufficiently know ledgeable in the areas of plant virology and plant virus recombination to be able to provide a well-informed input to GMAC in these areas. This is the source of any apparent contradiction in the two answers.(2) The members (Dr Oakeshott and Dr van Heeswijck) identified in part (16) of the answer to question No. 2918 did not stand aside from the discussions about plants carrying viral genes at the meetings referred to in that answer because they had no conflict of interest in the proposals. Neither Dr Oakeshott nor Dr van Heeswijck were involved in any of the nine proposals involving virus-resistant transgenic plants discussed at meetings they attended. Dr Oakeshott was present at a meeting (Scientific Subcommittee meeting on 2 July 1992) at which one proposal originating from the organisation that employed him (CSIRO) was discussed. That proposal involved virus-resistant transgenic potatoes and was submitted by CSIRO Plant Industry. Dr Oakeshott is employed in a different Division of CSIRO (CSIRO Entomology) and had no involvement with the project; he was therefore not considered to have a conflict of interest.(3) (a) Yes, because practising experts in genetic manipulation are essential for GMAC's function.(b) Yes.(a) Professor Angela Delves, Professor Ashley Dunn, Professor Peter Hudson, Professor Staffan Kjelleberg, Associate Professor Peter Langridge, Dr John Oakeshott, Professor Jim Pittard, Dr Jan Tennent and Dr Robyn van Heeswijck are directly involved in projects to develop genetically engineered organisms. Professor Byron Lamont, Professor Nancy Millis and Associate Professor Loane Skene are employed by organisations involved in projects to develop genetically engineered organisms.(b) Southern Cross University (Delves), Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research (Dunn), CSIRO (Hudson, Oakeshott, Tennent), University of New South Wales (Kjelleberg), Curtin University (Lamont), University of Adelaide (Langridge, van Heeswijck), University of Melbourne (Millis, Pittard, Skene).(c) Genetically modified rice and barley for cold tolerance and improved malting quality (Delves); genetically modified mammalian cells, microorganisms and laboratory animals for cancer research (Dunn); genetically modified microorganisms and mammalian cells for studies of gene expression (Hudson); genetically modified microorganisms for studies of bacterial survival in the environment (Kjelleberg); genetically modified wine yeasts with altered properties, genetically modified wheat and grasses with altered breeding properties, and genetically modified wheat for improved baking quality of the wheat flour (Langridge); genetically modified microorganisms and insects for development of biological insecticides and bioremediation (Oakeshott); genetically modified microorganisms for studies of gene expression (Pittard); genetically modified microorganisms for vaccine studies (Tennent); genetically modified grapevines for disease resistance (van Heeswijck).The organisations that employ Professor Lamont, Professor Millis and Associate Professor Skene are involved in projects to develop a very wide range of genetically modified organisms.6278(Question No. 3111)31116278Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:(1) What offers have been forwarded by each Commonwealth department and statutory authority to each consultant selected for the panel of suppliers established by his Department under competitive tendering and contracting for the provision of (a) legal services, (b) project management services, (c) management consulting services and (d) change management services and advice.(2) Which consultants referred to in part (1) have received contracts to undertake a consultancy.(3) What is the dollar value of each contract referred to in part (2).(4) Have contracts been let to consultants outside the panel; if so, in each case, what is the (a) name of the consultant and (b) dollar value of the contract.6278Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)—(3) The use of the panel of consultants to assist departments with their Competitive Tendering and Contracting approach (CTC) is not mandatory. Individual Government departments are not required to report their usage of the panel to the Department of Finance and Administration. Statistics on use of the panel are therefore not collected. However, Government departments are required to gazette all contracts arranged with a value above $2,000 in the Commonwealth Purchasing and Disposals Gazette.(4) The decision on whether a Government department uses a consultant from the panel or not, rests with the individual department. Government departments are required to gazette all contracts arranged with a value above $2,000 in the Commonwealth Purchasing and Disposals Gazette. 6278(Question No. 3112)31126278Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1310 (Hansard, 13 May 1997, page 3425) concerning the disposal of Gona Barracks, Kelvin Grove, Qld, has his Department developed a specific disposal strategy; if so, will he provide a copy; if not, why not.(2) Has consultation with key stakeholders, relevant authorities and members of the local community been undertaken; if so, what are the details; if not, when will it be undertaken.6278McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. A specific disposal strategy is presently being developed. A planning manager, who is responsible for the development of an appropriate disposal strategy, was appointed on 10 July 1998.(2) No. However, preliminary consultation has commenced with Queensland State Government, Brisbane City Council and the Turrbal Clan advising of the future closure and disposal of the facility. An integral part of the disposal strategy being developed will be an extensive consultation process involving key stakeholders, appropriate federal, state and local government authorities, interested parties and the local community. It is anticipated this consultation process will commence in late August 1998.6278(Question No. 3114)31146278Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6NamadgiALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 July 1998:Further to the answer to question No. 3021 (Hansard , 2 June 1998, page 4236), what was the total cost to the Commonwealth in precise dollar terms of his 1997 Christmas function held at Kirribilli House.6278Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I have nothing to add to my previous answers to questions No. 3021 and No. 2633 (Hansard of 1 July 1998 and Hansard of 13 May 1998 respectively).6278(Question No. 3122)31226278Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 July 1998:(1) Has the Australian Defence Force (ADF) decided to acquire aerial target drone towing aircraft from the US company, Tracor Flight Systems, ahead of tenders from Australian companies like ADI.(2) Is he satisfied that the selected tender was the best available to meet the ADF's needs; if so, (a) why was Tracor Flight System's tender the best available and (b) will awarding the contract to a foreign company benefit Australia more than awarding it to an Australian company; if so how.6279McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, the contract to supply the Kalkara Aerial Target System is with Tracor Inc. ADI was but one of several Australian based companies that tendered to supply an aerial target system to replace the Jindivik target system.(2) Yes, I am satisfied that the selected tender was the best available to meet ADF needs.(a) After an exhaustive evaluation, the MQM-107E target system offered by Tracor Flight Systems was assessed as the best available to meet the ADF's long term needs and, in doing so, represented the best value for money. My media release, MIN 120/96 of 21 November 1996, a copy of which I have forwarded to your office, referred to outcomes of the evaluation of tenders.(b) In each tender the target aircraft would have been sourced from overseas and operated by Australian based companies. The Tracor Flight Systems tender was no different in this regard with Aerospace Technologies of Australia, now Boeing Australia, sub-contracted to operate and maintain the system through to 2007.6279(Question No. 3124)31246279McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 15 July 1998:(1) Has an application been made by the Catholic systemic schools system to be funded by the federal Government at category 11.(2) Have the schools been assessed as meeting the criterion of need to receive the additional funding.(3) What (a) extra funding per primary student, (b) extra funding per secondary student and (c) average extra funding per student overall in the Catholic school systems would result if the funding application was successful.(4) What is the progress of the application referred to in part (1) and will he approve the application.6280Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) All State and Territory Catholic Education Systems, with the exception of the Western Australian and Australian Capital Territory Systems, are seeking category 11 funding from the Commonwealth. The Australian Capital Territory System applied for category 11 funding in November 1997 but withdrew its application in April 1998. The Western Australian System already receives category 11 funding.(2) In order for a System to be re-categorised, the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 requires a System to demonstrate that a significant change in financial need has occurred due to circumstances outside its control. Applications must be submitted to the Non-Government Schools Funding Review Committee (NGSFRC), an independent body which reviews each case and makes a recommendation to the Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training.(3) If the funding applications were successful, the extra funding (based on 1998 rates) would be: (a) $155 per primary student; (b) $224 per secondary student; and (c) an average of $180 per student for the Catholic school systems seeking a review.(4) All the Catholic Systems seeking re-categorisation to category 11 have had their appeals considered by the NGSFRC.