1998-11-113911REPS5101998-11-11Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous5110000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Pursuant to standing order 18, I lay on the table my warrant nominating the honourable members for Lyons, Menzies, Prospect, Throsby, Dawson, Greenway and Franklin to be members of the Speaker's Panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.Committees5151Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed today, 11 November 1998, at 3.30 p.m., or such later time as he takes the chair, as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Address in Reply5151Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Cameron Thompson:That the following Address in Reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Gellibrand, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.09:33:0051Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP01—Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your election to office. I am certainly extremely proud to be here today. I am not sure that my heart will be racing quite as much next time the bells are ringing as they did this morning, but I am proud to be here in this House as the member for Gellibrand, covering Melbourne's inner western suburbs. Since its creation in 1948, Gellibrand has only ever returned Labor members. It has an unashamedly proud Labor history and a strong industrial past as the engine room for the city of Melbourne. It is a living, working, vibrant region.Gellibrand has also been the first settling point for decades of migrants, from Maltese dock workers to Vietnamese shopkeepers. It has set a fine example of a harmonious, multicultural and diverse community. Through this example, the workers and families of Footscray, Sunshine, Spotswood and Altona North, amongst others, have sent a message to the rest of Australia about our capacity as Australians to work and live together, to respect each other and to have pride in our diversity. Many of these migrants came here to Australia escaping oppression and extremism in Europe, like my father's family, or they came from South-East Asia, and more recently Africa and the Middle East. Australia offered not only a safe and prosperous country to resettle in but also a strong democracy supported by an independent and accessible legal system.The electorate has been very well represented by its former member, the Hon. Ralph Willis. For just under 26 years he represented the people of Gellibrand and had a remarkable career, being on the front bench for 20 years, in government for 16 years and a minister for 13 years, with a term of that as Treasurer. Ralph was first elected to parliament in 1972 with the Whitlam government. I was only five when he was first elected. I was finishing high school when Ralph was building the revolutionary prices and incomes accord in the mid-1980s. He was addressing ILO conferences as the Minister for Finance when I was completing my honours law degree at Melbourne University.The point is that my generation grew up after Vietnam; we grew up after Whitlam; we grew up after the fiercest fights for equal pay and equal rights. Equality before and access to the law were becoming a reality, no-fault divorce was an unquestioned concept, Medicare was an institution and universities were accessible to thousands who never thought they would be able to go to university. The social framework of my whole adult life was shaped by Labor's agenda. Labor had been in office, both in Victoria and federally, for most of the years of my political discovery, radically reshaping the nation by promoting multiculturalism, environmental rights, fairness before and access to the law and reconciliation with indigenous Australians. When Labor was making history again with the native title legislation, I was working with the Hon. Justice Mary Gaudron at the High Court. It was a great honour for me to work with the first—and unfortunately at this stage only—woman ever appointed to the High Court. Not only was she an inspiration to me but I learned first-hand the value and strengths of an independent legal system.When Ralph Willis was appointed Treasurer of this country, Jeff Kennett had been Premier in Victoria for some time and a major upheaval in industrial relations had begun. So too had an attack on judicial independence. Judges and commissioners were being sacked. Frankly, it came as quite a shock to my generation of Labor supporters that any of these institutions and achievements could be under threat. It was a jolt that our well-established and accepted tribunal system, which provided the community with independent umpires to protect their basic rights, could be under attack.It was at this time that I was employed by the National Union of Workers as a union organiser, and this began my earliest connection with the seat of Gellibrand. As I have said, Gellibrand is the industrial heartland of Victoria, and it was my job to visit the many warehouses, food factories and chemical plants in this area, discussing wages, safety and training with our union members. It was a wonderful opportunity to spend time listening to and learning from these people and helping to fix workplace problems. The workers I met with and the working community of Gellibrand were a broad cross-section, ranging from women packing foods and pharmaceuticals to forklift drivers in blueys, men working in freezers at minus 30 degrees Celsius, Macedonian abalone packers and Filipino and Scottish refinery operators. These workers were a wealth of knowledge about the world, and from one worker to another they shared the aspirations of our region.The constant blending of new cultures in Gellibrand has strengthened, not dampened, the essential spirit of the western suburbs—that spirit being to protect and support each other, to have pride in our Labor and industrial heritage, to believe vehemently in fairness, equity and independence, and to share a pride in our families, their education, hopes and aspirations. This spirit is a Labor spirit.I feel proud and honoured that these people of Gellibrand have chosen me to represent them in Australia's most important forum—that they have entrusted me to be their voice, the voice making sure that the region's needs are recognised. I thank them for their support, particularly Ron Palmer and my campaign team, and assure them that they should feel confident that I will do all that is within my powers to ensure that our community's aspirations are realised.There are also a number of people who had the foresight to encourage me early, and to them I am deeply grateful. Thanks must especially go to Bill Shorten; Greg Sword; Denis Lennen; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean; Senator Stephen Conroy; Marsha and Kelvin Thomson; Simone Hurst; Natalie Sykes; and John Cain. For their personal assistance and support, I thank them. I am sure that it is not over and their support will still be required in the future.These people know that when the Howard government was first elected in 1996 unions and workers braced themselves for a new period of instability and unfair attack. They also saw this spark my political activism. They saw me move back to the law as an industrial lawyer with Labor law firm Maurice Blackburn. I returned to the law to be able to protect and represent working people at the front line of attack by the Howard government in the Industrial Relations Commission and in the courts. I now, with their encouragement and support, have the opportunity to continue this fight in parliament.Having briefly reflected today on Ralph's 26 years in politics, I invite you to imagine what, in the next 26 years, our society will look like. What will the next generation of Australians, like me before them, take for granted? I would hope that in that society the 40 per cent of families living in my electorate who survive on a family income of below $500 a week will be confident that despite all of the difficulties that they face their children will still have access to affordable and quality education and free quality health care should they become ill. They will have a chance, equal with all others irrespective of income, to do better for themselves and their children.They will have the opportunity to work. This simple aim is becoming more and more difficult to achieve, as we all know, in our world of chronic and pervasive unemployment. We will have regional industry policies which will be strategic and long term, looking to our country halfway into the next millennium, not just to the turn of the century. We will have an employment service which offers support and assistance to our unemployed and does not view them as a vehicle for profit making. When we do work, our jobs will be secure and we will be respected.In the society I aim for, the unemployment figures, which are particularly devastating in the western region of Melbourne, will not be used by unscrupulous employers as a threat to add to the insecurity already felt by so many in our fast-changing world. Currently, job seekers are constantly being told, `You should be grateful for a job, grateful for any job, grateful no matter what the conditions are, grateful to have the Christmas holiday, grateful for a tea break, grateful even to belong to a union even though you will be too scared to talk to them.'It may be a dream of some in this House—although they do not appear to be here to show that dream—to force Australian workers to this form of modern day servitude where workers are grateful for any job under any conditions. But it is not a dream that I can share, nor can any of my Labor colleagues.In this government's last term we saw it use the current economic environment with its high levels of unemployment as an opportunity to promote its industrial relations ideology. This should be a time when we are putting all our energies into creating jobs and employment, not using the opportunity to drive down working conditions.On this side of the House we know we must fight to pursue that goal of secure jobs with decent award wages. We know that it cannot be fought for by individual workers at individual workplaces. We know that it cannot be fought for just by unions, industry at a time. We know that it cannot be fought for by lawyers in courts as each case arises. It needs to be fought for by all of us in the broader labour movement, in all those places and by us on this side of the House. I feel sure that I speak for all in Labor's ranks when I say that we are committed to fighting to uphold these decent standards.It is my belief that the lack of job security has struck a strong chord within our community because the arbitrary and unfair behaviour that is being condoned in the workplace by this government could easily spill into other aspects of our lives. The spillage has, in fact, already begun. The Industrial Relations Commission has had its powers curbed by the Howard government. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission is chronically underfunded. Legal Aid has been cut beyond the quick. These institutions were just some of Labor's ways of ensuring protection for all in the community, particularly those most likely to suffer at the hands of the more powerful like big business and government. These were methods for regulating a decent society. They helped align our legal system more closely with our notions of justice. Our legal system under the current government is fast becoming a casino for the rich and inaccessible to all others.I would hope that in 26 years time we have a legal system in this country which protects people, and which is cheap and accessible to everybody. Without this we cannot ensure that our community will continue to have a peaceful way of resolving disputes. We must not weaken the system to the extent that we leave the powerful to run roughshod over others, or worse resort to violence and intimidation to get their way—as occurs in so many other countries around the world.As part of United Nations Refugee Week last month, I had the opportunity to reflect on some of these other countries. I heard many stories of countries where the infrastructure and democracy had crumbled around them—devastation, crime, abuse of power and complete disorder ruled. I was particularly moved by a Vietnamese refugee, now a senior monk at a major temple of ours in Braybrook, who spoke quietly of his hardship in escaping Vietnam and resettling in Australia. But this quietly spoken Vietnamese monk became quite animated telling the assembled crowd of his most satisfying and thrilling experience since settling in this country—the day he cast his first vote in an election. He described this as a precious moment, a sign not just that he was accepted within our community but that he was truly a participant in it and a participant in a genuine, stable democratic process—something that so many of us take for granted. It is funny that we must look at our country occasionally through the eyes of others who have suffered through war or tyranny to truly appreciate what it is that we have.I believe that looking through others' eyes at our institutions can in fact strengthen them, including the institution of this parliament. I am committed, in the next 26 years, to further strengthening our country's institutions. Hopefully we will, by that time if not well before, be a republic. I would hope that the new batch of members, all Labor of course, will not swear allegiance to the Queen but to serving the people of Australia. That republic will more appropriately represent the changing and growing face of our community.We should also aim for this republic of Australia to embrace an egalitarian spirit, one where women in this country will be truly equal and, if they so choose, independent. We must work so that in 26 years time the next generation will take for granted affordable and accessible child care, and take for granted workable sex discrimination legislation; and that we will have many women judges and more directors on boards of public companies than we can count. Very importantly, if this government is intent on pursuing a tax on consumption, we must have true equal remuneration.My generation of feminists are impatient that these basic issues and others have not yet been satisfactorily resolved. But, at the same time as continuing those fights, we want to be heard on other issues. The economy is still not regarded as a women's issue; tax is not regarded as a women's issue; industrial relations, industry policy—the list goes on. But these mainstream issues are of vital importance to women. They are key matters that must be debated with all parts of the community in mind.The world in the next 26 years should be able to take for granted and acknowledge that women are a mainstream issue in themselves. We are not a single issue to be marginalised. Our needs and interests must be considered in all decisions made by government, and our voices must be heard in those areas. I am delighted to be here today and to be joined by so many other Labor women also making their first speech in parliament. I would hope that in 26 years time, in a speech like this, it will be so unremarkable that neither the fact that I am young nor that I am a woman will even be noted. Instead it will be a world where it is noted that I am a lawyer or a unionist or that I come from a family of strong women, or some such other personal or professional description which we may all find of interest.Today is not just about my hopes and aspirations; it goes well beyond that. Today is about what I want to do to work towards achieving those hopes and aspirations as part of Labor's plan for the next generation under the next Beazley government. In fact, today is not just about our plans for the next generation, it is also our plan for the existing generations. For my mother, sisters and other relatives who are in the gallery today, I want to ensure that we live in a country that is comfortable for you to grow old in, where you will be treated with respect as you age and will be confident that the community will provide you with care and support if that is needed. Today is also about our capacity on this side of the House to drive the agenda for change in our society: to make it fairer and stronger and more humane. We are brimming with that capacity and have a powerful mix of experience and new perspective in our ranks. This will ensure that Labor can continue to be the progressive party of this country. We will strive to create a nation that can face the new millennium and beyond with humanity, fairness and security as the keys to our policy.My parents taught me at a young age about fairness and decency, generosity, having a go and helping others. When my father died, when I was 10, my mother taught me about independence and integrity. These values were the foundation that ultimately led me to the Labor Party and they are the yardstick against which I continue to make my judgments today. If I can leave this House having upheld and furthered those values, I will be very proud to have lived up to my family's hopes and aspirations.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!55Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will call the honourable member for Fowler in just a moment, but it would be helpful if I could see the member for Fowler. I understand the enthusiasm for commending the member for Gellibrand. I would point out to the House, before I call the honourable member for Fowler, that by agreement with the whips there are a number of opposition speakers being called and that this is the honourable member for Fowler's first speech. I would ask the House to extend to her the normal courtesies.09:50:0055Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP01—I am proud to rise, in my first speech in this House, in reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, on the occasion of the opening of the 39th Parliament. I would firstly like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your appointment and to wish you well in office.The 39th Parliament marks a significant milestone in Australia's history. Within the term of this parliament, Australia will enter its second century as a nation as part of a world entering a new millennium. It should be a time of great promise and optimism, a time when the people of Australia and of the world can reflect on what has been a century of great change—a century which has seen the best and the worst excesses in human behaviour.From an age when scientific endeavour and emerging skills in social organisation promised to provide a world free from disease, free from want and free from oppression, we should have expected a new century to be bright with hope and promise. Instead, we face an age of uncertainty, an era in which the electorate demands both more and less of governments and an era in which governments appear more willing to restrict their role and to reduce their responsibilities than to address the problems faced by the people of Australia. This is the challenge for this parliament—to redefine the role of government and to redraw the lines between collective and individual responsibility and between what governments direct and what is left to the market to decide.For governments in the coming century, their goals must include restoring hope and certainty to citizens. It is not good enough for governments to limit their scope to what they see as possible. I am reminded of the words of Hillary Rodham, speaking at her graduation nearly 30 years ago, when she said:For too long now, our leaders have used politics as the art of the possible, and the challenge now is to practise politics as the art of making what appears impossible, possible.Mr Speaker, I come to this parliament ready to take up that challenge. As a woman, I am especially proud to represent the electorate of Fowler, named after Lilian Fowler, the first woman mayor in Australia. She served as the Mayor of Newtown from 1938 to 1939.Lilian Fowler had earlier become the first woman alderman in New South Wales—in 1928—and went on to serve in the New South Wales parliament as the Lang Labor member for Newtown from 1944 until 1950. In a remarkable career, Lilian Fowler showed the capacity of women not only to serve in public office but to mix in the rough and tumble of ALP branch politics. It is interesting to note that, like me, Lilian Fowler had served in an electorate support role to a Labor member—although, I would point out that, unlike Mrs Fowler, I succeeded the former member on his retirement, not by defeating him at a general election.The electorate of Fowler was created in 1984 and was held from that time by Ted Grace. Like so many of his constituents, Ted migrated to Australia and in 1962 settled in the area he came to represent. His fight for basic services in what was at the time an outer urban area led him to serve on Fairfield City Council, Prospect County Council and, ultimately, as the member for Fowler. Ted's Irish background has made him a formidable advocate for the causes he believes in and a warm friend to those who have come to know him.Mr Speaker, the electorate of Fowler is unique in many of its characteristics. Lying in the south-western districts of Sydney, the electorate includes the suburbs of Cabramatta, Canley Vale, Canley Heights, Wakeley, Mount Pritchard, St Johns Park, Bonnyrigg, Endensor Park, Lansvale, Warwick Farm, Liverpool, Cartwright, Sadlier, Ashcroft, Heckenberg, Busby, Miller, Hinchinbrook and Green Valley. Fowler is almost evenly divided between the local government areas of the City of Fairfield and the City of Liverpool.Prior to European settlement, much of the area was occupied by members of the Cabrogal clan of the Darug tribe. The clan takes its name from the cahbra grub, a staple food for the clan and found in the creeks in the area. The name Cabramatta literally means `creek of the cahbra'. To the west of the present day electorate lives the Gandangara people. Both groups have land councils in the area today.The district of Fowler was one of the earliest areas of European settlement in Australia. Explorations by Bass and Flinders, as well as by Watkin Tench in 1791, are recorded. Permanent European settlement commenced at the close of the 18th century. Liverpool was named the first Macquarie town in 1810 and became the centre of a farming community that stretched west to the Nepean River. In 1856 Liverpool became the second centre after Parramatta to be linked to Sydney by rail.Most of the century that followed saw steady growth. However, since the Second World War the district has developed to the stage where, today, few tracts of vacant land remain. Fowler is now a fully developed urban area integrated into the broader south-western region of Sydney. Some industries are located in the electorate, although the bulk of employment opportunities are in adjacent districts where large manufacturing, transport and distribution facilities are located.Mr Speaker, the 1996 census provides a picture of the Fowler electorate which suggests that it is far from being middle Australia. Indeed, if you look at the comparative rankings of the 148 electorates represented in this parliament, Fowler tends to fall into a band at the extreme end of the scale. Fowler has the sixth largest population of all electorates in Australia. However, it is the make-up of this population that makes Fowler unique. It is a young electorate, ranking 15th with a median age of 30. This is influenced by a relatively low population of older people, with only 7.9 per cent over the age of 65, and a high proportion—8.7 per cent—under five years of age.The census figures confirm that Fowler is the most ethnically diverse electorate in Australia. Fowler ranks as the highest for residents born overseas, 51.3 per cent; born in South-East Asia, 22.2 per cent; born in a non-English-speaking country, 47.8 per cent; and born overseas or of overseas-born parents, 68.5 per cent. That is more than two out of every three residents. Fowler also has the highest number of persons born overseas and resident in Australia for less than 5 years, 9 per cent; the highest number not fluent in English, 17.7 per cent; and the highest number speaking a language other than English at home, 60.4 per cent. The problems faced by this large proportion of my constituents can be seen in reduced employment prospects and poor access to services.When we turn to the area of employment, we see another stark picture. Fowler has the highest rate of unemployment at 17.9 per cent, while youth unemployment ranks third highest at 29.1 per cent. At the same time, Fowler has a low work force participation rate of 54.3 per cent. The make-up of the Fowler work force provides further insights. Fowler ranks highest in the number of persons describing themselves as tradespersons or labourers, 31.6 per cent. It has the fourth lowest number with tertiary qualifications, 87.2 per cent, and the fourth highest number with no qualifications, 67.2 per cent.Fowler has the lowest number of persons in professional occupations, 12.4 per cent. It ranks 14th lowest in participation by women, 40.9 per cent, and has the 11th highest proportion of employees, 94.5 per cent. Twenty-six per cent of persons described their employment as being in manufacturing—the second highest rate in Australia.For such a work force, it is not surprising that 40 per cent of families have incomes below $500 per week and the median family income is $617 per week. While these figures are low compared with the national averages, it should also be pointed out that they apply in a relatively expensive place of living and represent families struggling to establish themselves in a new country. There is a relatively high number of couples with dependent children—the seventh highest number of one parent families with dependent children and the third lowest number of couples with no dependent children.Mr Deputy Speaker, if `Struggle Street' has a name, it is Longfield Street, Cabramatta, Castlereagh Street, Liverpool, or any number of streets in the Fowler electorate. Families where income earners are unskilled and have poor English language skills, face dependency on social security benefits or, at best, poorly paid employment and uncertain prospects for the future. The picture painted by these statistics does not suggest a work force ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.What has been the approach of the coalition government to this situation? For those needing to improve English speaking skills, the government has restricted access to the Adult Migrant English Service. For those seeking employment, the government's Job Network has been a total failure. For those seeking skills training, the government has abolished hundreds of training programs. For those seeking a living wage, they face one-sided negotiations on wages and conditions under the government's Workplace Relations Act.I would not suggest that there are simple solutions that would overcome these problems, but it would be equally foolish to suggest that many of the residents of Fowler described in the statistics I have cited would be carried along by a wave of new industries. It is more likely that they will join the ranks of the working poor, denied the opportunities to participate in the higher order of skilled occupations, a permanent underclass in a divided society.The biggest challenge facing governments today is to find ways to avoid this potentially disastrous division. I will concede that it is difficult but, as I said at the beginning of this speech, our challenge is to master the art of making what appears impossible, possible.My path to this place has been assisted and influenced by many people. I would like to take this opportunity to mention and thank some of those people. I have served a long apprenticeship in preparation for this day. It is just on 32 years since I joined the Guildford branch of the Australian Labor Party. I might add that two other current members of this House, the honourable member for Reid and the honourable member for Batman, joined the same branch in that era.The influence of my family, especially my grandfather, Frank Pittman, and my parents, Alan and Lois Welsh, ensured that I joined the Labor Party as soon as I turned 15. While I could hardly have imagined at the time that I would represent the ALP in this parliament, my concern for the issue of Australia's involvement in Vietnam, as well as the need for an extra number in the branch, started me along this path.Many people have guided and assisted me. My father, Alan Welsh, served as a Labor alderman on Parramatta City Council. My mother, Lois Welsh, was secretary of the New South Wales Labor Women's Committee. She showed me the importance of commitment to the cause of Labor and the skills of networking. My involvement in the labour movement was extended when I began working for trade unions, the first being the Sheet Metal Workers Union. I had the privilege of work ing for a great trade unionist, Tom Wright, the then secretary of the union. I learned two important lessons from him during the equal pay case of the late 1960s. The first is that nothing worth while is achieved without struggle and the second is that the prize has to be worth the cost of the struggle. There was no shortage of radicals in the 1960s. There were many who had fire in their hearts; there were few who also kept a cool head.Through Young Labor politics, I was able to meet many who have gone on to high public office, including two still serving in this parliament—the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith and the honourable member for Watson. I also met my partner of 28 years, Geoff Irwin. It was the usual story. He was the dedicated Prospect-Werriwa Young Labor Association President and I was the faithful secretary. Love at first sight? He liked the way I kept the attendance book!In 1975 I became the electorate secretary to Jack Ferguson, at the time the New South Wales Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, within a year, Deputy Premier. That opportunity introduced me to the side of an elected member's work that few appreciate. When you are confronted each day with the effects of government decisions on ordinary people, you obtain a better insight into the workings of government and the disadvantages faced by those in our society who are least able to deal with the bureaucracy. My experiences working for other members, including Dr Richard Klugman, the Hon. Ross Free and my predecessor, Ted Grace, have confirmed my belief in the importance of this aspect of a member's work.In 1975 I had the opportunity to attend the Women in Politics Convention held in Canberra during International Women's Year. When I look around me today and see the increased representation of women in this parliament, I realise that women have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.Speaking of 1975, today is, of course, 11 November, Remembrance Day—a solemn occasion, but also, for those on this side of the House, a day of infamy. It is also the second anniversary of the founding of a group dedicated to seeing more women elected to parliaments. I speak of Emily's List. I was grateful for the support offered to me by this fine group and I know that many other Labor women candidates are thankful for the resources and support they received from Emily's List. I look forward to seeing a greater number of Labor women in Australian parliaments as a result of this assistance.I must also thank my campaign team and the genuine rank and file members of the Labor Party in the electorate. In Fowler we achieved a remarkable result, making it one of the safest Labor seats in Australia. My thanks go to my campaign director, Councillor Nick Lalich of Fairfield City Council, as well as the Mayor of Fairfield, Councillor Chris Bowen, for his campaign advice; Councillor Bob Watkins for his assistance; my assistant campaign director, Joy Petrovic; Sam Bargshoon; Rob and June Elkins; David Grace; Justin Lee; Marlene Meyer; and a host of dedicated campaign workers. I was also assisted by a number of family friends: Gordon and Lyn Lambert, Barbara Sheather, Greg Garvin, Bob and Nada Hunt.I must single out one campaign worker who performed above and beyond the call of duty. Peter Fraser, who we nicknamed `the Captain', worked tirelessly throughout the campaign. Even a heart problem could not keep Peter away. Three days after having a pacemaker inserted he was back on the job.I would add a special thank you to my family. As I am sure all members are aware, families make many sacrifices when a family member is in public life. For my husband Geoff, my daughter Rebecca, my son Blake, my parents, Chris Hunt, my wonderful sister Helen and her husband Osvaldo Del Gallo can I say thank you for your support, love and understanding.Finally, I would like to thank the people of Fowler who have placed their trust in me to represent their interests in this parliament.58Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for Lalor, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.10:15:0059Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP01—To be elected to this House as a Labor representative is a great honour. To be elected as the first woman ever chosen by the Victorian branch of the Labor Party to stand for an historically safe seat is more than a personal honour; it is a Labor landmark, as is the record number of Labor women sitting in this House. It is a cause for celebration and will inspire us to ensure that many more women follow us into this parliament. Having reached this place, my first task as the new member for Lalor is to thank the outgoing member, Mr Barry Jones, for his service to the local community over the past 21 years, for his contribution to Australian political life and for his personal support and encouragement.Barry Jones has a unique place in Australian political life. Barry is famed throughout Australia for his intellect and is respected throughout Australia for his genuineness and compassion. In an age of cynicism about politicians, Barry Jones is one of the few politicians of whom Australians are truly fond. In the electorate of Lalor he is loved. While he will be sorely missed from this House, Barry will continue to serve the Labor Party as its national president and will continue his passionate engagement with Australia in his writing and public speaking.The electorate of Lalor, so ably served by Barry Jones, is situated in Melbourne's outer west. Young families flock to Lalor and new housing estates are constantly being built. Part of Melbourne's industrial heartland, Lalor contains the Altona petrochemical complex, the Laverton industrial estate and the Toyota manufacturing plant, as well as the Point Cook and Laverton air bases. Far less well known and perhaps surprising to some, given the standard imagery of Melbourne's west, Lalor encompasses a significant agricultural precinct at Werribee South and throughout the electorate you find internationally protected wetlands. Lalor also contains major tourist attractions, including the historic Werribee Mansion, the open range zoo and the State Rose Garden.As part of Melbourne's industrial west, the people of Lalor have always had to try harder. There is a sense of community and a fighting spirit often missing from the sleeker suburbs. That fighting spirit is now being called upon in a major community campaign to stop CSR turning the local quarry at Werribee into a toxic dump. There are only two reasons why Werribee has been selected as the site for this toxic dump: CSR wants to make money by filling its disused quarry with toxic waste and the Kennett government thinks Werribee is no more than a dumping ground because Melbourne's sewage farm is located there. But Premier Kennett and CSR are wrong.When the Victorian Premier turns to the west, he holds his nose and closes his eyes. If he opened his eyes, he would have seen the 15,000 Werribee residents who rallied to stop the dump. And by now he should be smelling the scent of a political defeat because this is a fight that Lalor, named for that great fighter against injustice Peter Lalor, will win.The electoral division of Lalor has enjoyed great stability and quality in its parliamentary representatives. Since its creation in 1949, apart from the curious aberration of being represented by the Liberal Party for one parliamentary term, Lalor has been represented in this place by only three members: Reg Pollard, Jim Cairns, the famous antiwar advocate, and Barry Jones. Whilst its parliamentary representation may have been stable, like all of Australia, the electorate of Lalor has undergone a radical transformation since World War II. In Lalor, as in our nation generally, the twin forces of globalisation and rapidly changing technology, particularly information technology, have remade and will continue to remake our lives.The prevailing mood of insecurity is an understandable community response to the swirling winds of change which threaten to blow us to unknowable destinations. In Hugh Mackay's Mind and Mood study and in Clemenger's Silent Majority report, we find a society in which individuals increasingly feel insecure and powerless to control their lives in the face of rapid economic restructuring and social change. Most tellingly of all, parents believe their teenagers are facing a tougher world than they themselves faced. As a community, in common with societies throughout the Western world, our response to insecurity has run from simple nostalgia to the spectacle of the frightened turning on the vulnerable. Endless remakes of the songs and movies of the 1960s and 1970s and the rise of reactionary politics have something in common—both seek a return to a mythical, simpler time, a deep and dreamless sleep.Various conservative politicians, some with subtlety, some nakedly, have encouraged this dangerous trend. So-called `wedge politics' sells the big lie that the answer to insecurity is to tread on the weakest amongst us. This shabby opportunism has hurt many and helped none.For far too long public debate in Australia has failed to nourish or inspire us. For far too long it has been limited to the day-to-day monitoring of the health of our economy rather than the morals and goals of our society. The end result of this political cycle is a weary people who no longer believe what politicians say and who think the politicians saying it do not even believe it themselves.In my view, the electors of Lalor, and the Australian people, are looking for a return to passion and conviction in Australian politics and to the clear articulation of values. They rightly want to know what their politicians stand for, what we believe in and by what measures we are prepared to be judged. If the politics of values comes to the fore, then the Labor Party will win that contest. It is only the Labor Party that can claim to be based clearly upon a value system, a value system that has endured since the Labor Party's formation, even though the policies based upon those values are constantly revised in order to meet the needs of a changed and changing world.We stand for the right of ordinary Australians—those who have neither wealth nor power—to a fair go, to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace, to be recognised and valued as citizens and to have a say in their nation's future.Our values are fundamentally democratic and collective. We understand the great enduring truth that individuals are immeasurably strengthened by being members of a team, of a society, and that a strong community provides the best platform from which individuals can excel. And we understand that the key aspiration of each generation of Australians is to ensure that the generation to follow, their daughters and sons, will lead a better life. These values—our core Labor values—are true signposts which take us beyond some of the sterile debates of the past.Our conservative opponents would have Australians believe that our nation will only find its place in an open and competitive global economy if we sign up to the cult of individualism, to the survival of the fittest. By contrast, Labor—guided by our values—understands that, just like the most loving homes produce the confident kids who are able to face the world and take the risks necessary to get ahead, a nurturing and caring society is the best foundation for the individuals who will ensure Australia competes in the global market.A strong economy and a strong society are not contradictory goals. Indeed, you can only achieve a sustainably strong economy by creating a strong society. A country is strengthened by individual security and national inclusiveness.But security alone is not enough. A vision to satisfy Australians, a Labor vision, must also be a vision of opportunity, a vision whereby each and every Australian, no matter what their personal circumstances, is given an opportunity to develop and to excel, a vision whereby we can truly believe that the opportunities for the next generation will be better.My personal story shows the difference that opportunity can make to a life. My father John and my mother Moira, who is watching from the gallery today, migrated to this country with my sister Alison and I as assisted passage migrants in 1966. Immigrants need courage and creativity; they need open minds and sturdy hearts. What the last red-headed woman who made a first speech in this place will never understand is that the vast majority of migrants come here determined to make a better life for themselves and their kids, and they are prepared to work unbelievably hard to achieve that dream.My father worked in a variety of blue-collar jobs before training as a psychiatric nurse. My mother worked as a domestic in an aged care institution. Between them they have contributed more to this country as workers, as citizens, than they ever cost it. And because they chose this country, while they still have their accents and their culture, they love this country and the lives they have made within it. Because they chose this country, they take nothing about it for granted: they celebrate and know its worth. And that is the truth of our history of migration, our history of multiculturalism.In return, Australia has offered me opportunities that would have been beyond my parents' understanding when they stepped off that boat in Adelaide in 1966. It would have been inconceivable to them that their child, and a daughter at that, could be offered the opportunity to obtain two degrees from a university and to serve in the nation's parliament. I have only been able to take up those opportunities because of the excellent state education system which flourished in South Australia under the Dunstan Labor government and the access to universities made possible by the Whitlam government's abolition of up-front fees.In coming to this House, I bring with me a passionately held view that it is fundamental to Labor's vision, to our compact with this and the next generation, that Australia not only offers the opportunities I enjoyed but offers the opportunity to train, to retrain, to excel, throughout life. Around the world now there is a trend back to the Centre Left, to social democratic parties that stress the importance of raising the educational standards of all citizens, not just a lucky few. This is because not only economists but ordinary people understand that the future of Australia and the future of themselves and their children is tied to educational success.Australia cannot afford to waste talent. But, under this government, we are engaging in that shameful and cruel waste. We are denying Australians access to opportunity. In its 1996 budget, this government took $1.8 billion of public support away from our university system. The inevitable result has been a decline in the number of students starting courses at our universities. When the cuts took effect, Victoria tumbled from having the second highest growth rate in commencing enrolments to being the state with the biggest fall, a 4.7 per cent fall in commencing enrolments—a statistic which speaks of misery and lost opportunity.Perhaps worst of all, under this government we have returned to a system of privilege rather than merit in our universities, a system of allowing the rich to buy a place while those with better entrance marks but not enough money miss out—a system which was eradicated by the Whitlam government when I was in primary school.Of course, inequality in our education system is not just confined to higher education. Let me give you just one example involving my own electorate. High achievers are those talented young people who come in the top 7.5 per cent of results in their year 12 marks. Last year, one very good but very exclusive ladies college in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne alone had 111 high achievers in the pivotal subject of English. The 40 working-class secondary schools north and west of the Yarra, including the schools in my electorate, managed only 84 between them.The students from my electorate are not any less intelligent than those from Higgins or Kooyong but their educational opportunities are not the same. Certainly, this massive discrepancy would be lessened if we as a nation were prepared to seriously tackle the inequality of opportunity that exists in our education system and create a high-class state school system. My predecessor, Barry Jones, used to say that unfortunately postcodes are probably the strongest factor in determining a person's expectations of success in life. It will be one of my priorities in politics to ensure that in the Australia of the future the famous quizmaster is, for once, wrong.My passion for education is not only the product of my own personal experience; it is the result of having campaigned on these very issues as a university student. One of the features of this parliament is that every few elections there arrives a new generation of politicians distinctly different from the people who preceded them. People today make a lot of the new generation from the other side of this House who emerged from the battles with left-wing students on our campuses in the 1970s. I come from the generation of students who followed. Like them, we fought what we saw as self-indulgence and pampered extremism. Ours was a radicalism fashioned by a desire to be practical, much like my Welsh forebear, Nye Bevan, who was just one of the people from whom we took inspiration.I will not pretend that the antics of a bunch of university students had much relevance to real working people, but we were always conscious that we were part of a wider movement to create a fairer society and give others the opportunities we were fortunate enough to have. We always understood the value of working collectively, of unionism. While experience in the student movement inspired those on the other side of the House to dedicate themselves to the destruction of unionism, it inspired us to work with and for unions. It inspired me to spend eight years as an industrial lawyer defending trade unions and working people. In this place, I will remain fiercely committed to working with unions and to working for fair industrial laws.Our youthful anger may now be tempered by experience but the same beliefs in fairness and the same fire remain. Those friends from university have remained my comrades since the early 1980s. They are people of intelligence, public spiritedness and integrity. We stuck together and we retained our common goals. Today you can find them fighting in our great trade union movement to protect the jobs of timber workers, rubbish collectors, home care workers, nurses and Aussie post workers, defending injured workers in the courts and helping prepare the ALP for the new millennium.Today I pay tribute to them and especially to the most committed of them all, Michael O'Connor, who has been my closest confidant since those heady days. I would not have reached this place without his support and without the support of the friends and family members who care about me and have turned up in remarkable force today. My sincere thanks to: my mother, Moira; my father, John; my sister, Alison; her partner, Paul; and their children, Jenna and Tom. To Darrell Cochrane and Joan Kirner for never once wavering: my thanks. To Robyn McLeod: thanks for your friendship. To John Brumby, who so richly deserves to be the next Premier of Victoria: thanks for the opportunity to work with you and learn from you. To the member for Batman, Martin Ferguson: thanks for your help and personal support. And to my wonderful supporters in Lalor, including Terry Bracks, Henry Barlow and Fiona Richardson watching from the gallery today: I will do everything in my power to make you proud.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the honourable member for Chisholm, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.10:27:0062Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP01—It is my great privilege and pleasure to address this House today as the member for Chisholm. I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to your position in the House. To the members for Gellibrand, Fowler and Lalor: congratulations on your first speeches. It is a pleasure to be in such meritorious company. It augurs well for a truly representative new parliament. I stand before this parliament honoured to be the new member for the seat of Chisholm.No-one gets here alone. I would like to thank my parents, particularly my mum, who is here today, for her generosity of spirit and her example of just getting on with the job. To my support group of siblings and siblings-in-law: thanks for being my Burke faction and for never allowing me to think too highly of myself.To the ALP members in Chisholm and the numerous volunteers who flooded in with help, enthusiasm and unwavering belief that we would get there: thank you. As countless before and after me will place on the Hansard record, we would not be here without your efforts, for being elected to parliament is a team event. To the staff and executive of the Financial Sector Union: thanks for your understanding, over many months, that a marginal seat is not won in just five weeks.The seat of Chisholm was created in 1949 and has been well served by the five members who have represented the seat in the federal parliament. The most recent representative is the newly elected member for Casey, Dr Wooldridge. It is my commitment to uphold the positive example set by my predecessors in representing the people of Chisholm.Today I wish to address some of the many complicated issues facing Australian society. The first is the decline of collectivism in the face of rampant individualism and, secondly, the enormous challenges that globalisation and technological change present to both citizens and governments. Inspiration in dealing with these issues can be found in two of Australia's most famous people: former Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, and the woman after whom my seat is named, Caroline Chisholm.Caroline Chisholm was famous for her work with new immigrants to New South Wales during the 1840s and 1850s, and later in the goldfields region of Victoria. She lobbied to ensure these people were provided with adequate accommodation and personally organised the often destitute young women to journey to rural areas in order to secure employment. Her benevolent crusade to better the lives of immigrants earned her the title `The Immigrants' Friend'. Caroline Chisholm spoke of her philosophy in the following terms:I resolved in every way to sacrifice my feelings, to surrender all my comforts, and to devote myself to the work I have in hand. I promised to know neither country or creed but to serve all.This quote embodies the very essence of this tireless social reformer. The generosity of spirit displayed by Caroline Chisholm is an inspiration to me as it should be to all members of this House. She is a shining example of the values that have traditionally been considered Australian—a belief in the right of all people to be given a `fair go' and to be free of poverty, a recognition of the value of collective action and persistence in the face of adversity.Caroline Chisholm was a fierce supporter of immigration, which at that time came mainly from the United Kingdom. It is therefore fitting that the seat that bears her name is fast becoming an area of choice for new immigrants to Melbourne, with over 30 per cent of Chisholm residents being born overseas. Chisholm is home to a large population of migrants from Greece and Italy, whilst also attracting a growing and vibrant Chinese and Vietnamese community in the Box Hill area.I am deeply committed to multiculturalism. I am proud to be representing a party that has a strong record of promoting the richness of ethnic diversity, rather than merely tolerating it. As a leader of the Sri Lankan community said to me at a community function during the election campaign, when lamenting this government's handling of issues relating to racism and multiculturalism, `After all, who is tolerating whom?' Communicating with all the various ethnic communities in Chisholm has been both a pleasure and, in a small way, a tribute to the energy and good works of one of the great `founding mothers' of Australia.The seat of Chisholm incorporates a considerable slice of the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, stretching from Box Hill in the north, through Burwood, Mount Waverley and my family home in Ashwood in the centre of the electorate, to the southern areas of Chadstone, Clayton and Oakleigh. Many of the suburbs of Chisholm have been described as an example of quintessential middle Australia. However, such a categorisation hides the rich diversity and unique people and places that are contained within the seat. I would prefer to call Chisholm a snapshot of modern Australian society.Traversing the streets of the electorate one can encounter a thousand different insights into the people who call Chisholm home: young families looking for an affordable lifestyle that is within reasonable proximity of the city—this was typified by my parents who bought in Ashwood, raised five children and could never afford to leave—older residents enjoying their twilight years; a flourishing mix of old and new immigrant communities who call the suburbs of Chisholm home and enhance the culture and atmosphere of the area; and young people striving to gain access to educational facilities and secure themselves a career.Whilst it is the people who provide the rich culture of the area, there is also a growing presence of light industries, educational facilities and medical centres. Box Hill stands as the biggest office and retail centre outside the Melbourne CBD. However, like any area, the electorate has its share of problems. Stubborn levels of unemployment, drug trafficking and unfortunate excesses associated with gambling threaten the very fabric of our local area. I intend to do everything possible to address these serious issues.Both before the last election and during the formal campaign I gave a commitment to the people of Chisholm I wholeheartedly intend to honour. That commitment was to offer a new style of representation. It is not enough for politicians to simply assist constituents with local matters and deliver the occasional dreary monologue to the electorate. Modern technology enables a meaningful dialogue between local members and interested constituents that encourages two-way communication and input. It is my objective to make my accessibility to Chisholm residents and their views the hallmark of my term.However, representation is pointless if it is not supported by an underpinning philosophy. We in the Labor Party are blessed to have a rich history and many sources from which to draw inspiration. One of those is the late Ben Chifley, former Prime Minister of Australia. In 1948 he said:I think it is tragic, in the world in which there has been so much scientific development, that men and women in a community cannot individually be assured of a reasonable standard of living when unemployment due to uncontrollable causes, or sickness, or needs, or attention to their family, overtakes them; and that they cannot be assured of security for their own future when they grow old and security for their children. These things are really worth fighting for.It is amazing, if not a little sad, that 40 years later concerns over security still permeate our modern life. It is the issues that surround security, whether it be security of the family, job security or access to high quality health care that, together with access to economic security, are still amongst the most urgent issues we face as a society.Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, has long been a hero to those on the conservative side of politics. It was Mrs Thatcher who was famously quoted as declaring that there was no such thing as society— only individuals and families. I stand opposed to this ideology.Whilst I am happy to see initiative rewarded, and I support the pursuit of excellence, rampant individualism has had a harmful effect on our society. One has only to look at the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots to track its destructive influence. Individualism comes with a price tag and those who cannot afford the freedom it offers often simply get left behind, unable to compete.I believe it is incumbent upon all civilised societies to reach out to those who do not have the means to fend for themselves and offer them assistance and support. If we are to look for examples of this through our history one needs to look no further than Caroline Chisholm who was champion of the less fortunate during the 1850s—a time marked also by the excesses of individualism.In order to reignite the spirit of social pioneers such as Caroline Chisholm what is needed is a renewal of the concept of collectivism. Collectivism has traditionally meant ownership of land and the means of production. However, in modern times collectivism is all about people with common beliefs working together for common aims. It is an enduring Australian value that may yet provide a buffer to the excesses of individualism. Current examples of collectivism are found in local communities, schools, churches, families and trade unions.Trade unions have been championing collectivism in Australia for over 100 years. Central to trade union philosophy is the fundamental belief that an unequal bargaining relationship exits between an employer and individual employees. Trade unions have been one of the most fervent and successful exponents of the need to take collective action. Despite the ravings of the far Right and their political acolytes, the need for trade unions in the workplace has not declined. Indeed they are now needed more than ever. Whilst the changing nature of the economy has made dense union coverage more difficult to achieve, the need for vigorous and effective unions has far from diminished, as the shame ful events on the wharves earlier this year clearly demonstrated.The 1990s has seen the continuation of large-scale redundancies, the contracting out of jobs and increased casualisation of the work force—all of which have led to a reduced feeling of job security amongst employees. This trifecta of insecurity makes it impossible for many ordinary Australian families to plan for their future or to tread with any sense of certainty. These feelings are particularly acute in a period of sustained unemployment such as Australia is experiencing.For the past five years I have had the privilege of working for a robust union representing members in the private sector—the Financial Sector Union. This work presented me with many highs and, sadly, many lows. The highs included improvements in members' conditions through collective bargaining in areas like profit share, paid parental leave, accountability for superannuation scheme surpluses, protection and retention of hard-won employment terms and conditions, and guarantees that part-time workers, women mainly, would have a real say in rostering arrangements.The lows all came in the form of redundancies driven by shareholder returns. These redundancies were never seen in any way to be a hardship on those affected or viewed as a blight on our society. These were jobs lost in pursuit of the high watermark of cost to income ratios, where cost was measured in human capital and human misery. Job losses were not caused by a declining industry, for in the finance sector the major players are still reporting record profits in the billions.My parliamentary colleagues in the government bemoan the presence of unions, but they and business organisations are happy to use the union movement as a convenient excuse when necessary. I cannot tell you how many times bank management quoted the union when advising employees of job losses, saying, `The unions have been advised and they have no problems.' Well, we were advised, but our imprimatur was never sought and never given.Over the past two years I have witnessed 5½ thousand staff being made redundant from the ANZ banking group. This is not just 5½ thousand people who have lost a job; it is 5½ thousand jobs gone for future school leavers, graduates and mums returning to the work force. These jobs lost predominantly are those of men in their 40s with up to 30 years experience who may never work again. It means the demise of rural towns and strip shopping centres, the loss of income to single parents, the demise of a notion of service and the destruction of the will to work for the firm in those left behind to carry on. And this is the picture the government hopes to replicate when it perhaps abandons—hopefully not—the four-pillar policy in the banking sector. If implemented, this policy will see 40,000 jobs lost from the industry and genuine competition in financial services a thing of the past.Yes, there is change in service delivery, and financial institutions are ensuring customers migrate from bricks and mortar branches to electronic transactions. But most of us still need to go inside a bank branch for many transactions or services, particularly small businesses. Most of us want real service and people need to be employed to provide it.A by-product of winning the seat of Chisholm is that I no longer have to walk down Queen Street in Melbourne to be advised, `Its only 20 today, Anna,' but sometimes it was 1,500 who were going through this restructure—how I hate that word. I cannot wait to seize the opportunity to add my voice to the debate on the merits of the Wallis inquiry when the matter comes before this House.To add injury to insult, the current government has put in place and proposes further legislative changes which it describes with an Orwellian flourish as workplace reform and freeing up the labour market. This is a smokescreen for enshrining in legislation the circumstances to create a workplace of scarce opportunity populated with powerless and desperate people willing to do almost anything to feed their families. This government stands condemned for its conduct in industrial legislation and will be cursed by working people all over this country if it succeeds in passing their industrial relations legislation.The globalisation of information technology and the economy brings with it enormous opportunities for human progress and economic prosperity. Whilst we must continue to grapple with internationalisation, we must never forget that there will always be victims of this change. Just as the industrial age was not achieved without hardship, the explosion of telecommunications and information technology will also produce a new set of people struggling to adapt and prosper from these changes. Ben Chifley knew 40 years ago that scientific development brought with it no guarantee of security and we must also rise to the challenge of cushioning the effects of change. As I moved about the Chisholm electorate, I was overwhelmed by the strong resistance to changes wrought by misuse of technology and economic changes such as privatisation and the contracting-out of essential services. One of the issues that caused people to feel a sense of insecurity was the disappearance of what they considered to be the fabric of life—local bank branches, Medicare offices, the local Burwood hospital, the electoral office, schools and even amenities such as local parks and open spaces. Citizens have a right to a decent level of service delivery from their governments: an efficient Medicare system, accessible educational institutions and child care, high quality and affordable hospitals and nursing homes, and proper support from a government agency for those seeking employment.I believe the parlous state of many essential government services—from the abolished Commonwealth Dental Scheme to concerns over the continued privatisation of Telstra—has added to the discontent and lack of certainty that predominates within our communities, particularly among older Australians.I am reminded of a visit I made during the election campaign to a senior citizens club in Oakleigh. While I was talking to some of the members, one particular lady commented on the lack of human contact that exists when we undertake our daily business. Her example of the problems associated concerned the ill-conceived absorption of the Department of Social Security into Centrelink. Her main complaint was the requirement to use a phone based interactive service. This lady and many of her friends felt it was entirely inappropriate that they should be forced to use such an impersonal service considering the sensitive and detailed nature of many of their inquiries. She went on, `My eyesight isn't so good any more, my English is poor and, besides, I don't have one of those new push button phones to use when the voice on the phone says, "Press star now."' Whilst to many people this may appear to be only a minor issue, I was struck by how profoundly it exemplified the demise of human interaction that technology can bring, and how isolating these so-called new and effective systems can be. For many older Australians these can be frightening and disorientating phenomena. It is a reminder to all those in positions of leadership in the community that we need to be mindful of the effects of rapid change and technology on people's quality of life. One day we too will grow old.This really brings me to a much larger question: how do modern democratic governments manage change? The current government blathers about its ability to fireproof the Australian economy against the worst effects of the Asian economic crisis. But what about fireproofing the people? Are we able to secure opportunities for our children's futures whilst providing some protection for the vulnerable in the community from the adverse consequences of globalisation?It is the true test of the stamina and vision of a government as to whether they can encourage citizens to embrace change, yet at the same time ensure that those left dislocated are given access to the requisite support mechanisms to make the necessary adjustments. Education and retraining are part of the answer, but so is the provision of a proper social safety net. One cannot expect people to embrace the challenges and opportunities that the information revolution and internationalisation can bring without affording them some basic level of certainty over their standard of living.Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, successive Labor governments achieved these objectives whilst providing a sound social safety net which included the accord, universal health care and superannuation, genuine labour market job programs and an adequate social security system. This is the Labor way. It is only Labor that can steer our country along the rocky roads of change whilst making sure we keep all of our citizens on track. I will work towards the return of a Labor government to achieve these goals for ordinary Australians, because these are still the things worth fighting for. To end my speech I would like to thank my best friend and cheerleader, Steve, who is in the gallery today. Without your tireless support, your efforts and your unending faith in me it would not have happened. Thank you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call the honourable member for Cowan, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.10:46:0067Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP01—I want to start by congratulating Mr Speaker on his election to the position of Speaker of the 39th Parliament. I want to wish him well, and I trust that his judgments, rulings and adjudications will reflect the balance, fairness and impartiality crucial to that high office and to the orderly conduct of the business of this chamber. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend the same sentiments to you.Like others, I want to record my thanks to a number of people who gave strong support to help win the seat of Cowan. First and foremost, to my wife, Noelene, who is in the chamber today, who has stood beside me for almost 30 years and given me the support that only a spouse can give, and to my two daughters, Kerryn and Jaynie, for their belief in their father. To those members of the ALP who strongly supported me during an interesting preselection process and during our campaign, I also say thanks. I particularly want to mention Jim McKiernan and Ted Cunningham, who did an incredible amount of work to ensure that Cowan came back to its rightful place in Labor hands. To my campaign team, who worked long and hard with spirit, enthusiasm and optimism, I again record my appreciation. Above all, I want to say to the people of Cowan—those people who put their trust in me to do the job and to do it well—that your trust has not been misplaced and that I will work with endeavour to ensure you the responsible and diligent representation and commitment to which you are justly entitled.I had the opportunity earlier this year to attend the Constitutional Convention as an elected delegate representing the Australian Republican Movement in Western Australia. I want to quote from volume three, page 168 of the Hansard covering those proceedings, where I said:I remember too as a young boy listening to the stories of veterans from Gallipoli, the Middle East and France and being told then by some of those veterans that one day Australia would break from the monarchy. I had the opportunity some years ago to visit Gallipoli. I must admit, it was an emotional experience. As I stood in awe at Anzac Cove, I came to understand the depth of feeling with which those men of my childhood spoke. Indeed, the first republicans I met, although I did not recognise it at that time, were some of those diggers who survived the horrors of the First World War.I just ask you to reflect on these facts. In 1914-18 Australia had a population of some four million people. Of that sparse population, approximately 417,000 enlisted in Australian forces. Over 300,000 were sent overseas to serve on some three different continents. Sadly, 60,000 were killed and over 220,000 were wounded. That war on foreign soil ripped the heart out of our young nation. Indeed, I often wonder where Australia would be today if those young men had not been sacrificed for King and Empire.I wanted to record those words here today for two reasons. Firstly, as a new member I want to strongly identify with the movement of this nation towards a republic and towards bringing home our Constitution, and to us having an Australian as our head of state. I also want the opportunity in the next parliament to swear allegiance to Australia and her people. Secondly, I want, in my first speech and on this 80th anniversary of the armistice, to record my appreciation and to salute those men and women whom we commemorate today. I think it is worthy of note that, whilst there are many things of importance in our national capital, there are two buildings here of immense significance and importance to our nation. One is the national War Memorial, a place which reflects courage, sacrifice, service, mateship, honour and love of country. The other building of which I speak is this, our national parliament, which most Australians will tell you reflects none of those just mentioned qualities or characteristics. I raise that here not because I want to denigrate my chosen profession, but because I believe Australians have had an absolute gutful of petty party point-scoring politics and politicians. They simply want us to get on and resolve the real problems that confront this nation, and there are many of them.It is, in my view, important to recognise that those qualities of mateship, of service and of courage have been crucial to the development of this nation, both in war and in peace, and to the development of the Australian character. Now, poised as we are on the eve of a new millennium, it seems to me that we need to grasp those qualities and carry them into the next century. Indeed, I hope that those characteristics are as evident in Australia in 50 years time and that they are as important to our future development as they have been to our past.As a Vietnam veteran, I find some irony in being elected to this public office with an opportunity to speak on many subjects and issues that confront Australians. I say irony, because I cannot help reflecting that some 28 years ago I and a military plane load of other wounded and ill Vietnam veterans were snuck back into Australia in the dead of night, secreted away for 24 hours in an Air Force base hospital in new South Wales, and then quietly shunted off to other hospitals around Australia.I say irony, because the then Liberal government took every action to hide wounded diggers away from the media and away from public view on their return to Australia during those controversial Vietnam War years. I say to the Liberal government that you will find it harder to hide me now, just as you will find it hard to hide the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Minister for Defence from some of the issues relating to veterans that I intend to raise here today and in the future.The first issue I want to raise relates to the health and wellbeing of Vietnam veterans, their spouses and children. The Vietnam veterans health study indicates that Vietnam veterans suffer a higher incidence of mental health conditions, including panic attacks, anxiety disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.This report also reveals that 25 per cent of veterans have been diagnosed with some form of cancer since their first day of service in Vietnam. The report also shows that some specific disease conditions and the prevalence of cancer are higher amongst Vietnam veterans than amongst other Australians of comparable age. The report also indicates concerned over the level of stress caused to partners and spouses resulting from the health of veterans.A matter of major concern in the report comes under the heading `Congenital abnormalities and deaths of children'. That alone should cause this government to deal with this whole report as a matter of urgency. I urge the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to attach high priority to the health issues of Vietnam veterans and their families, particularly where those health issues impact on the children of veterans. I want to tell the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that the Vietnam veterans community is becoming increasingly cynical and impatient at this government's lack of response to this health report, and further delays by the government are simply exacerbating the problems and causing great anxiety and anger.The second issue relating to veterans which I wish to raise flows from the disgraceful decision made by the former Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, Mrs Bishop, who refused to award medals of gallantry to six diggers, at the same time as she conferred those same awards on officers. Her decision caused those six diggers to knock back her downgraded commendations and it led to the largest refusal of awards in Australia's history.I want to raise the circumstances of one of those diggers, a bloke by the name of John Burridge from Western Australia. His circum stances are no more nor less compelling than those of the other veterans involved. I want to quote from a document headed `Recommendation for honours or awards'. It is dated 8 May 1969, and was signed by his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Khan, in Phuoc Tui Province in South Vietnam. It says:Private John Burridge commenced his National Service obligations on 1st May, 1968 and after recruit training was posted to the 5th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment on 9th July 1968. He arrived in South Vietnam on 15th February, 1969 as a machine gunner in 11 Platoon.On 4th April, 1969, while on Operation OVERLANDER, 11 Platoon came under heavy enemy machine gun and rocket fire from a bunker position at a range of 20 metres. Two members of Private Burridge's section were killed and the section commander wounded.Private Burridge moved forward, on his own initiative, to a position 15 metres from the enemy and commenced engaging the bunkers. He maintained his position for over an hour and effectively prevented the enemy from moving to other bunkers on the flanks of the platoon. His actions drew most of the enemy rocket fire onto his position and as a result he was wounded in both legs.Despite his wounds and further enemy engagement of his position, Private Burridge continued to fire on the bunkers and restrict the effectiveness of the enemy fire until the remainder of the platoon could move to a new position.His courage and complete disregard for his own safety were major factors in preventing further casualties to the platoon and his conduct was an inspiration to all.The recommendation that he received was for a Military Medal. John Burridge never received that award because he was excluded by a quota system. In short, the quota system meant that Caesar looked after Caesar, and the quota saw precedence given to officers, many of whom had not seen a shot fired in anger, to the exclusion of diggers like John Burridge and his five cobbers who put their own lives on the line to protect their mates.The unfairness of the quota system came to light in about 1994-95, and it was revealed that the quota system included both operational and non-operational awards. In every other war in which Australia has been involved, an end-of-war list was implemented to enable a review of commendations for awards. That did not happen after the Vietnam War. To their credit, the coalition made a pre-election commitment in 1996 to rectify the problem and implement an end-of-war list, which they did. However, they have now refused to fully honour their commitments. Under the old imperial awards system, officers recommended for this level of gallantry received a Military Cross. For the same level of gallantry, diggers received a Military Medal.Debate interrupted.Miscellaneous6969Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)UNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWNUNKNOWN00—Order! While I am loath to interrupt the honourable member for Cowan, as we approach the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month I ask all members of the House and those in the gallery to rise for a minute's silence to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Remembrance Day.Honourable members having stood in silence—10000Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the House, and I ask all to remain standing as I call the honourable member for Cowan, who will read the ode.69Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them. Lest we forget.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Lest we forget.Governor-General's Speech6969Debate resumed.11:02:0069Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I was talking about Blue Burridge and I was saying that under the old imperial awards system officers recommended for this level of gallantry received a Military Cross. Diggers for the same level of gallantry received a Military Medal. However, under our new system of awards there is now no distinction: officers and diggers alike receive the same award, the Medal of Gallantry. This is confirmed by the then Secretary of State for Defence in the United Kingdom, Mr Rifkind, who in 1993, when explaining the new system to the House of Commons, said:That the Military Cross and the Military Medal are for the same degree of gallantry is without question. It is only the constituents which are different.The difference in constituency was abolished then in England but, because of the entrenched position adopted by Minister Bishop, it is obvious that the class distinction remains in Australia.In my view, it is the courage of these diggers which should be the determining factor of these awards, not the petulant, childish attitude of a minister of the Crown. Blue Burridge and his mates are entitled to justice, and I see three courses of action to achieve it. First, I am prepared, with the support of my party, to introduce a private member's bill. Second, I am, despite being a determined supporter of the republic, prepared to write to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and ask her to intervene on behalf of these blokes. Thirdly and lastly, the option is for the minister now responsible, following Minister Bishop's demotion, to initiate his own review and ensure that justice is finally delivered. On behalf of all fair-minded Australians, I would urge him toward that course of action and say that I am prepared to give him time to address that issue before taking action myself.I was interested to hear the government indicate in the Governor-General's speech, on page 11:The government will continue to strengthen the security of veterans and war widows by heightening recognition of their service and improving health and financial assistance. The commemoration program will be boosted to ensure that veterans' courage and sacrifice are honoured and that our proud history is celebrated.Well, we have heard today of the courage of veterans that has not been honoured. That leads me to wonder just how much of what the government had to say yesterday is simply rhetoric and mere attention to words with no intention of actually doing what it says it will do and acting with the honour that this Prime Minister talks so much about. I quote from page 5 of His Excellency's speech, where this claim is made:The government went to the Australian people with a plan for a new tax system. . . . The government will move quickly to put its bold new plan in place.This is the new tax that the Prime Minister says we have to have. It is a new tax he claims he has a mandate for. I am here as one of four new members from Western Australia to tell the Prime Minister that he has no mandate for this tax. Indeed, the results of the election clearly indicate that if this bold new plan had been put by way of referendum it would have been soundly beaten. Let us be honest about it: what the government has in this place is the numbers. It does not have a mandate, and we should not confuse those two things.There are a number of local issues in Cowan that I will be giving priority to, and I can say with some confidence that I have a grasp of what those priorities are, having personally doorknocked just over one-third of the electorate. That doorknocking gave me a close feel for the hopes, the aspirations, the fears, the concerns and, above all, the insecurities of this diverse electorate, which represents to me, as I have heard others say, a snapshot of Australia. I use the word `insecurity' because it is my view that many Australians feel insecure. It is an insecurity brought about by uncertainty in the workplace, economic rationalisation and privatisation by a government which seems intent upon destroying the institutions that have given this nation its sense of balance and fairness for many decades. I refer to our industrial relations systems, our unions, our health systems, our hospitals, our aged care systems, our schools, our child-care systems, our social security and our veterans' affairs systems, and perhaps above all the institution of the family in Australia. All of these are under direct attack from this government.I retired early last year after some 15 years in state parliament. All I wanted to do was get away from politics, to go and do a bit of fishing, to relax, to enjoy life and to do the sorts of things I had dreamed for so long of doing. But what I saw in retirement scared me, frankly. I saw for the first time the incredible division and fragmentation that was occurring under this government and I saw the concern and the fear that it was causing within the community. And I am not the sort of bloke who can sit on the fence in the face of those sorts of issues.I saw how that fear was impacting on my many friends in the Vietnamese community, the Chinese community, the Burmese community, the Malaysian community and in the general framework of Australia. That is a division that seemed to me to be going unchallenged by this government. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to join ranks with my other colleagues in the Australian Labor Party, both in Western Australia and in Australia, to fight the sorts of issues that were starting to tear apart what I consider to be a fairly just and reasonable society. The vacuum created by the Prime Minister and the government led to much of the concern and the fragmentation and division that grew in Australia.I understand that I have one more minute. I want to take that to quickly reflect on a couple of other issues. One of them in Cowan is the Telstra buffer zone issue. It is an issue that I do not have time to go into here, but I will take that time at a later stage in this chamber.The second is simply this, and then I will conclude: I want to pay tribute to Kim Beazley and the job that he did in leading the Australian Labor Party to this election. In Western Australia, we recognised the great characteristics of Kim Beazley. It will take the rest of Australia a bit longer to do so, but they will. I have absolutely no doubt that Kim Beazley will go on to be one of the great prime ministers in Australian history. I look forward to that time.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Before I call the honourable member for Charlton, I would like to acknowledge the presence of a former distinguished member for Charlton, the Hon. Bob Brown, in the Speaker's gallery today. I bid him a warm welcome on this very special occasion for him and his family. Secondly, I remind the House that this is the first speech of the honourable member for Charlton. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.11:09:0071Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP01—I congratulate the Speaker, the member for Wakefield, on his election to this high office in this chamber. I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election to this position and I congratulate the member for Cowper on his election as Deputy Speaker of this House. I know you will all continue to maintain the respect for your positions as others have done before you. I look forward to a good relationship with all of you.First, I would like to express my appreciation to all the ALP members in Charlton and to my campaign committee for a herculean effort over the past 18 months: in particular, Mark Williams, who is the president of the Charlton Federal Electorate Council and the Charlton campaign director, and the committee members Bill Attwood, Bobby Bozinovski, Phil Cooke, Maureen Vickery, Marcus Mariani, Liliana Rixon, Chris Harrison, Peter McLeish, Michael Buckley, Marjorie Gissane-Clark, Christine Finlay, Rowley James, Joshua Brown and Bert James, a former member of this place who provided valued advice and treasured friendship before, during and after the election campaign.I sincerely thank my husband, Reg, and my two children, Naomi and Bobby, for their continued love, support and patience and for sharing their time with me with the Australian Labor Party and with the Charlton electorate. Thank you.I take this opportunity, too, to pay a well-deserved tribute, as you have done, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the former member for Charlton, the Hon. Bob Brown. I know honourable members who enjoyed the opportunity to work with Bob both as a colleague and a political opponent will join me in paying this tribute. Bob is well respected within the ALP, within this parliament and within the wider community for his skill, intelligence, passion, belief and pursuit of social equity and justice for all members of our community and for the pursuit and maintenance of decent working conditions and wages for all Australians.I thank Bob also as my father and my mum, Joy, for the invaluable support and guidance they have given me which enabled me to pursue those values of equity and social justice I grew up with. My position here now as the member for Charlton representing coalminers and workers and their families and communities is a culmination of my idealism within the trade union movement, my workplaces, my communities and mostly the Australian Labor Party.It is also significant, as the member for Fowler referred to, that we are delivering our first speeches to this House on Armistice Day, 11 November. I do not need to remind honourable members or you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the travesty which occurred in this city on that day in 1975. It is a great personal honour that on 15 August this year Gough Whitlam officially launched my campaign in Charlton at the Cardiff Workers' Club. So I take this opportunity to thank two of the great living legends in this country, Gough Whitlam and his wife, Margaret, for the honour they bestowed upon me and ALP members and supporters in Charlton.As one of 12 women out of 27 new members on this side, I know I join my women comrades in thanking the wonderful efforts of Emily's List. Emily's List is an organisation which was formed in 1996 and guided by the Hon. Joan Kirner OAM to help support women entering politics financially, practically and morally. In my own situation, I would like to thank Jo Anne Bierne for being there whenever I needed her, at any time and for whatever reason.I mentioned before that I represent coalminers and workers and their families, as well as the broader community. I also represent the Australian Labor Party. As an integral part of that representation, I will be joining my colleagues on these greatly expanded opposition benches to remind government members of the basis of their representation here. This government has been elected with a 12-seat majority in this House to govern and to govern well—and that is all. We heard yesterday the Governor-General detailing and outlining the government's legislative program for this term and we will all hear, over the coming months, its claim of a mandate for introducing a GST or for selling Telstra. Let me turn our attention to this whole issue of whether this government has a mandate for anything else but to govern and to govern well.This is a government that was re-elected with less than 49 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. Only 34 per cent of electors voted for the Liberal Party as their first preference. Less than six per cent voted for the National Party as their first preference. What this result says is that less than 40 per cent of electors voted in favour of a GST, less than 40 per cent of electors voted for the full sale of Telstra and less than 40 per cent of electors voted for further attacks on workers' rights, conditions and wages. These are three of the core promises that the government will claim it has a mandate to implement. I will expand on each of them, as I and my colleagues will continue to do over the course of this term of parliament.The scrutiny and debate that the opposition will bring to these issues in this parliament are what Australians were entitled to over the course of the election campaign. Scrutiny and debate of these issues were denied them because the Prime Minister chose to call the federal election on a long weekend in most of the country, during the school holidays in most of the country and surrounded by the Commonwealth Games and sporting grand finals, which took priority over a federal election in most of the country.In this parliament we will be pursuing the debate that should have been pursued during the election campaign: the debate to which all Australians were entitled before they cast their vote on 3 October—the debate which those Australians were denied. At this point I will indicate, for the record of Hansard, my preference for fixed term parliaments, which would deny prime ministers of either political persuasion the opportunity to time an election for purely political purposes.Three of the issues I mentioned that we will be opposing vehemently in this House are those of the GST; the sale of Telstra; and the member for Flinders's capitalist agenda of attacking workers' rights and conditions, and further exploiting workers and their families to make way for increased profits for those whom the Liberal Party supports—the top end of town.Firstly to the GST. This is a tax that places an increased burden on low and middle income earners and reduces that burden on high income earners. This is a tax which is grossly unfair whichever way it is packaged. We on this side of the House, and the opposition in the Senate, will oppose it all the way. It is interesting to note that a recent report by five of Australia's leading economists has recommended to the Prime Minister that tax credits, similar to those that were promised by the Labor Party were we to win government, be introduced to help reduce unemployment. I will be very interested to see whether the Prime Minister accepts and implements this advice or whether he pursues his narrow agenda of a GST, which 60 per cent of Australians clearly do not want.Second, there is the proposed 100 per cent sale of Telstra. Telstra is our national telecommunications carrier. Prior to this government selling one-third of it, Telstra—a large and hugely profitable organisation—was 100 per cent owned by all Australians. Now it is only two-thirds owned by all Australians. And this Prime Minister wants to sell it all, putting it in the hands of an elite few who can afford to buy and then maintain their share investment. For what? The government states that the money will go towards rehabilitating and protecting our natural environment. I believe that our natural environment is our greatest resource, which we hold in trust for our children and our grandchildren and for many more generations. It should not be held to ransom or be used as a pawn in the debate about Telstra.Telstra is a communications carrier. Communications and the environment are poles apart on the legislative agenda, which is highlighted by the fact that this government and previous governments have seen fit to have them as two distinctly different areas of responsibility within cabinet. They are not linked in this way, and nor should they be. The idea is absurd and preposterous, and it should be abandoned now.During my representation in this place, I will be pursuing vigorously the rehabilitation and protection of our natural environment. It will be an issue, I am sure, that will also be pursued by my good friend and colleague, Jill Hall, the member for Shortland. Our electorates adjoin the waters of Australia's largest coastal lake, Lake Macquarie. The member for Shortland was a great and effective environmental campaigner in the state during her time in the New South Wales parliament as the member for Swansea, a tradition I am sure she will continue admirably.Finally, I refer to the issue of workers rights and family security and opportunity for all those who seek it. This is really the heart and soul of the Labor Party. Our party was founded on these principles over 100 years ago and we should never and will never forget our roots.I take this opportunity to thank my local trade union branches and their members for the tremendous support afforded to me over the past 18 months during which we have been campaigning—in particular, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Electrical Union and John Maitland as the national secretary; the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and Doug Cameron; and the Maritime Union of Australia. My deep appreciation goes to every single trade unionist who maintains the struggle and continues to stand by the mottoes of `United we stand, divided we fall' and `Workers united will never be defeated'. I will be honoured to continue in the tradition of defending and representing Australia's workers, both in this parliament and in the wider community, a tradition which was proudly set and admirably pursued before me by my father, Bob Brown, the first member for Charlton.As honourable members know, it is a great privilege to be elected to our national parliament. I am one of 148 members, and we collectively represent the interests of over 18 million Australians. In my electorate of Charlton there are over 85,000 voters. Well over 60 per cent of them elected me as their representative here. But I will just clarify that point further: there may have been a handful of voters who voted for me because I am Kelly Hoare, but the vast majority of the voters in Charlton voted for the Australian Labor Party and they voted for me because I represent the Australian Labor Party.To represent our party is a great honour and I pay tribute to the members of the Australian Labor Party—that great team of men and women who have affirmed their commitment to the policies, the principles, the philosophy and the traditions of the broader labour movement by becoming members of its political arm. Our party is made up of many diverse men and women—young people, old people, people from varying backgrounds and cultures, high school students and life members. Life members are people who have been members of the Australian Labor Party for over 40 years. Most members do not seek public office and they are always there at every election for every level of government: they fold leaflets, they `letterbox' and they hand out Labor how-to-votes on election day come rain, hail or shine.There are nine Labor Party branches located in Charlton. They meet every month. There are thousands of these groups of people meeting across the country every month. They meet in halls, clubs, pubs, schools, backyards, lounge rooms and tin sheds. Labor Party members debate issues with belief and with passion. They support the party and they defend it to the hilt. I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party and I am honoured that my comrades in the party selected me to represent it in Charlton and ultimately in this parliament.I will also express my appreciation to the two other candidates for ALP endorsement in Charlton, Councillor Alan Hunter and Ms Sonia Hornery. While recognising with all my colleagues that preselection campaigns are occasions of some tension, I want to acknowledge the goodwill with which the campaign was conducted. In particular, I must give special acknowledgment to Alan Hunter. Alan was and is the personification of goodwill, good humour, honour and principle and he reflects the best qualities of Labor activists.I conclude by making a brief statement about this parliament and its role. Too often this parliament has directed an inappropriate share of its time, effort and legislative resources to the interests and concerns of the rich and powerful, those interests and people within the community who are already at the top of the pile doing very well from the system and are capable of looking after themselves. An inadequate share—as significant as it often is—of the effort and time of this institution is applied to the interests and problems of the people in the community who need to be defended, who are unable to advance their own interests, who are in need of assistance and protection, and who are often pushed aside and left behind.The chief role of this place should not be to preserve the privileges of those whose interests our social and economic system mainly benefits but to seek to redress the imbalance between those who have wealth, status, influence and power and those who do not. This parliament must be a vehicle for the achievement of equity, to strike down unfairness, to redress injustice and to deliver security and opportunities.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Before I call the honourable member for Shortland, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.11:29:0074Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP01—I would like to acknowledge the member for Charlton's kind words and say that I look forward to working with her. Today is a significant day for me. It is the occasion of my first speech in this most important parliament in Australia. It is Remembrance Day and it is also the anniversary of the day the Whitlam government's mandate was withdrawn by a hostile coalition Senate and a Governor-General who was not elected by the people, a day which is of particular significance for me because it was the catalyst that led to me joining the Australian Labor Party, becoming politically active and making this speech today. I have always believed that the role of government is an inclusive one where the interests of all people and groups in the community are taken into account and no one group is advantaged at the expense of another.Good government is inclusive. It is about developing a sense of community so that every person in that community is able to benefit from the resources, wealth and services of the country. The Whitlam government sought to do this. It was a government that had vision—the vision to share the wealth of the country with all Australians to create a just society where everyone in the community had an equal opportunity to succeed. One of its greatest reforms was the change to tertiary education, a change that made university education accessible and affordable for everyone, not just a few privileged Australians. It was a change that created opportunity for many Australians, myself included.Before progressing any further, I would like to thank the people who have supported and assisted me in the recent election. Firstly, I would like to thank my campaign director, Peter Morris, my predecessor. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge his achievements as a federal member, minister in the Hawke government and the work he has done over the years, particularly in the area of transport and shipping. He provided the highest level of service to Shortland, the Hunter and Australia over 26 years. Peter Morris is acknowledged as one of the finest, if not the finest, transport minister Australia has ever had.I would also like to thank each and every member of the Australian Labor Party in Shortland and my family for their hard work during our long campaign. It is appropriate for me to make a special mention of the Maritime Union and the CFMEU for their tireless work. Their contribution to our local campaign was enormous.Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank the people of Shortland for their support and the trust they have placed in me. They can be assured that I will represent everyone in our community equally and will always be accessible. It is my goal to develop those things that make our community special and to create more and better opportunities for everyone in Shortland.Shortland is a very special electorate. It includes part of the Hunter and Central Coast regions of New South Wales. It is an environmentally sensitive area. It is nestled between the Pacific Ocean and an extensive lake system. Shortland is home to some of the most sensational and fragile coastal areas in Australia. These areas must be protected for future generations, and the ecology preserved.Because of Shortland's unique and special environment, it is under attack from people seeking to exploit and destroy those things that make it special. Conservative state and local governments have sought in the past to force inappropriate development on the local community and destroy the fragile environment. A number of these issues still remain unresolved. With BHP seeking development approval for residential development in the Belmont wetlands area, history could repeat itself if this development is imposed on the community against its wishes. I have listened to the people in our community and I will join with them to fight inappropriate development.The environment in Shortland is so special that its promotion and protection will create opportunities for new jobs and a secure economic future for the area. Its destruction will lead to lost opportunities. Unfortunately, the Howard government chose to ignore two submissions for funding from Lake Macquarie City Council to the Natural Heritage Trust. These proposals for a foreshore park at Green Point on the shores of Lake Macquarie and the Fernleigh track were both endorsed by the community. Both enhanced and protected the environment. Both created jobs, a basis for future opportunity and expansion of the local economic base.But this government, in its wisdom, chose to ignore these projects and the aspirations of the Shortland community, just as the previous Howard government chose to ignore the people of Shortland when it closed the Belmont Medicare office, the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service at Charlestown, the Belmont CES and stopped the Centrelink visiting service to Swansea.The Howard government has waged an unrelenting assault on public sector jobs in the Hunter and on the Central Coast, slashing services and lengthening unemployment queues. The insecurity caused by the mean-spirited policies of this government is particularly apparent on the Central Coast. The policies and lack of commitment to regional ism are punishing the people of the Central Coast. Its failure to attack new industries to the region is forcing people to travel by car to Sydney on a daily basis because of the inadequate transport systems and limited job opportunities.This government is giving every sign that it will be an even bigger disaster, with its intention to force its GST on the Australian people without proper consultation or consideration. It will cause dissension, division and alienation within the community of Shortland and Australia, where the majority of people voted against this tax and they object to it being imposed without proper consultation.Prior to the October election, people in Shortland expressed their despair at the impact that they feared the GST would have. Women voted in greater numbers for the Australian Labor Party than for this government because they could see the negative and regressive impact the tax would have on them and their families.The Howard government has demonstrated a harsh approach to child care, health care and aged care, which has alienated women even further. Its preoccupation with economic matters and dismissal of issues affecting the daily lives of women and their families have led to their becoming very disillusioned with the government, and this disillusionment will grow.At a time in history when countries and governments throughout the world are facing enormous economic and social challenges and when there is a great need for governments to show leadership and initiative, Australia has a government that is abrogating its responsibility and refusing to show any leadership—any leadership at all.Instead of looking for new and innovative ways to address the problems caused by the global economy and a changing economic and social environment, this government has adopted policies that are directed at punishing those people who are the victims of this changing internal and external world.Shortland is an electorate where the changing world environment is impacting directly on the lives, opportunities and self-image of everyone. Micro-economic reform, the impact of the global world economy, privatisation and the current economic climate have led to a reduction in employment in traditional areas.Changes in employment and in the economic base of the Shortland electorate were very apparent in the recent census which showed that the Shortland electorate had an unemployment rate of 12 per cent, with three out of four electorates throughout Australia having a lower unemployment figure than Shortland. The median or middle income level for families in Shortland is $621 a week, which places it below the national average of $729 a week. Shortland has a labour force participation rate of 53.3 per cent, which is the 13th lowest participation rate in Australia.If these figures are compared with the Prime Minister's electorate of Bennelong, the differences are apparent. In Bennelong, the unemployment rate is five per cent. The median weekly family income is $975 and the participation rate is 61.1 per cent. This comparison demonstrates how societal and economic changes have impacted to a greater extent in Shortland than in the more affluent electorate of the Prime Minister. It also demonstrates that the government's policies are failing to address the needs of the people of Shortland and are failing to address the needs of ordinary Australians, people who have to support their families on $621 a week.These are good, hardworking Australians who have a great deal to offer and are willing to meet the challenges of the changing world and social environment. In order to meet these challenges, they need leadership, intervention and government policies that will enable them to make this transition. The ability of a person to find and maintain a job is their basic right. That is why we on this side of the House made a commitment to reduce unemployment to five per cent. Unfortunately, this government is not prepared to make a similar commitment; rather it chose to decimate the services that assist people to find jobs.The new Job Network is a disaster and this government's latest decision to cut 5,000 staff from Centrelink, a service that is already understaffed, will only lead to a further reduction of service to unemployed people. The Hunter is one of the worst hit areas in Australia. It will lose 230 staff from its customer service centres, a cut of almost 18 per cent. Once again, this government is demonstrating its contempt for the people of the Hunter. I do not share the government's belief that the answer to reducing unemployment is to cut services. Unemployed people can only find jobs when governments introduce innovative programs and policies that give unemployed people the training, skills and opportunities they need to find jobs, whilst encouraging industry to expand.The Howard government's approach to the changing economic and work environment has been to attack the wages and conditions of workers. The reduction in the power of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is to the detriment of workers. Its inability to intervene in Australian workplace agreements has reduced the protection available to workers. This government says it is using the Workplace Relations Act to support localised employment agreements between employers and employees, but if a localised employment agreement is reached that is contrary to the government's expectations, then the agreement will not be ratified. If the aim of the Workplace Relations Act is to create simplicity and flexibility through a direct relationship between the employer and employee, why are these agreements being refused ratification?The government's agenda is obviously to reduce the power of the worker in the bargaining process and lead to a reduction in wages and conditions whilst at the same time reducing the power of the trade union movement. This government's hatred of unionists and workers was most visually demonstrated during the recent dispute between Patrick Stevedoring Company and the Maritime Union of Australia when it, in effect, sanctioned the sacking of an entire work force. It was an act that turned Australian against Australian and yet again demonstrated an exclusive and divisive approach to government. It is an approach that ignores consulta tion, it ignores the wish of the community and is authoritarian and ruthless.Another trademark of the Howard government has been the war it waged against the people in greatest need in our community: the elderly, young families and people on low incomes. It has waged a ruthless attack on the health system, slashing funds to the states, causing long waiting lists and distress for people waiting for surgery. Its attacks on elderly Australians needing nursing home care and families needing child care have caused distress within the community.Shortland is an electorate where a large proportion of the population is aged over 65. As His Excellency the Governor-General pointed out, 1999 is the International Year of Older Persons and this heartless, uncaring government's present to older people will be a GST, the erosion of aged care, increasing health costs and decreasing health services. This government's legacy to older Australians is increasing hardship and insecurity.One of the keys to creating opportunities for the future is investing in education and ensuring its availability to all Australians. Recent changes to education are signalling a return to the times when, if you came from an advantaged background, you were assured of quality education. The last two coalition budgets reduced university grants. Universities are experiencing the impact of this now, with courses being slashed and research curtailed. The changes to the HECS scheme are creating an enormous barrier for students from ordinary Australian families and disadvantaged backgrounds and the cutting of funds to government schools is creating a two-tiered education system.It is the responsibility of governments to ensure that all children receive an education. The quality of this education should not be determined by a person's ability to pay. If a country is to thrive in the current world environment, then all students must have equal access to education and the quality of that education must be determined by a student's need, not by their ability to pay.In the future, there will be a greater need for good literacy and numeracy skills and a higher level of educational, technical and work skills. The ability to obtain these skills should be one of the foremost functions of government. It is essential that governments intervene and not leave this to market forces. If they do not intervene, then it will create a divided multitiered society, with a person's future and aspirations being determined by their ability to pay. This is the Australia which I fear this government is seeking to promote. It is not an inclusive, caring, communal society; rather it is divisive and lacks any sense of community.For jobs and sustained economic growth, Australia needs innovative industry policy and a strong economic industry base. This government's industry policy is marked by a lack of commitment to research and development and regional Australia. For Australian industry to expand and create opportunities for the future, there needs to be encouragement for companies to invest in research and development.Without a commitment to the future, and without government encouraging this commitment, there will be no innovation or new ideas in Australia: companies will continue to go offshore, which will lead to further job losses. There will be a further alienation of workers and a breakdown in our societal structures and communities.This is not the Australia I want, and it is not the Australia that will benefit the people of Shortland. Australia is a country that can enjoy a great and prosperous future. The people of Shortland can share this prosperity. Shortland has a diverse work force, and it is situated close to the port of Newcastle. It has excellent infrastructure linking it to the rest of Australia, and it is able to access Australia and the world through the Internet, which creates unlimited opportunities for the future.The Hunter and Central Coast regions are set to take the new millennium by storm. All we need is vision, commitment and support from this government. Unfortunately, I do not think that this mean, miserable government has the ability, the commitment or inclination to provide that support. Therefore, I will work with my community, and other communities in the Hunter and on the Central Coast, and their elected state and federal members of parliament, to create that initiative at a local level and foster regional development.Australia is on the eve of considering constitutional reform. Part of those considerations should include a deliberation on the need to move to longer and set term parliaments. For a government to be truly effective, it must have the ability to plan and consult with the community prior to implementing its policies. Currently, the terms of government in this legislature are, on an average, well under three years. I believe that this is unacceptable and inhibits good government. At a time when we are looking at constitutional reform, this is an issue that must be addressed. It would also be of benefit to Australia if there were an evaluation of the role, responsibility and relevance of all tiers of government.Australia is a country with great potential. Its greatest asset is its people, and it is the role of government to represent all those people, not just some. The role of an elected representative is a very responsible one. It is one I have had the privilege to hold at a local, state and now federal level. It is a responsibility I take very seriously. I look forward to serving the people of Shortland and to fighting for greater opportunities, more jobs and a better deal for all people in our community.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Before I call the honourable member for Barker, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.11:48:0078Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP11—Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your election to that position. Let me add my congratulations to the Speaker of the 39th Parliament of Australia. Having known the Speaker for some 20 years, it is indeed a personal pleasure to see him receive this honour. I know he will perform his duties with decorum and respect for this institution. Recently I was informed that the Speaker, like me, went to Urrbrae Agricultural High School, as did the former member for Kalgoorlie, Graeme Campbell. I now know that my alma mater must almost rate up there with Geelong Grammar for its ability to turn out members of parliament. The Speaker has served the electorate of Wakefield and the government of Australia well, and his honesty is respected by both sides of this parliament. His family is rightly proud of him, as are his friends throughout this country.Today is an important day, as we are all well aware. Apart from being the 23rd anniversary of one of Australia's most defining moments in our political history, it is also the 80th anniversary of the ending of World War I where 61,000 people, our diggers, died for our country. It is an honour to speak for the first time in this House on this day.I compliment the honourable member for Cowan—who I am sure has great feelings for today—not only for his war service but also for a successful maiden speech. May I also compliment the honourable members for Shortland and Charlton, whose first speeches I found very interesting, even if I found much to disagree with.Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to describe my background and how it has helped me form my Liberal philosophies. Hopefully it might explain what I might offer to good government in Australia. I was born 42 years ago in Happy Valley, which was then in the electorate of Barker. At that time, Archie Cameron, a former Speaker, had just ended his 22-year term as the member for Barker and the Hon. Jim Forbes was just starting his 19-year term as the member for Barker. Indeed, I can well remember handing out how-to-vote cards for Jim Forbes at the Happy Valley CFS shed when I was 16 years old.Since that time, Barker has been well served by James Porter for 15 years and, more recently, by my predecessor, the Hon. Ian McLachlan, who served with distinction as the Minister for Defence. These are certainly very large shoes to fill, but I am committed to the Barker electorate and I look forward to the new challenges I will encounter.I am also looking forward to working with the Prime Minister, John Howard. He, like the Speaker, is an honourable, decent human being and commands respect throughout this country.I was the youngest of eight children, and I was extremely pleased that my 81-year-old mother was here to see me sworn in, together with my wife, Jayne, and two children, Will and Lottie. There has been no prouder moment in my life than to have my mother and family here to share this special occasion. Unfortunately, my father, Bill, was not well enough to attend, but I am sure that my upbringing in such a relatively large family has had an enormous impact on my thoughts, actions and deeds throughout my life.My eldest sister, Helen, is a nun with the St Josephite Order, which was founded by Mary MacKillop, and having the Mary MacKillop Interpretive Centre in the Barker electorate has special meaning for me. Indeed, my sister was recognised in the Australian honours list last year for her work with mentally retarded people—due in part, I am sure, to another sister of mine having had Down syndrome.One thing about being a member of such a large family is that when we sat around the kitchen table there was always something to talk about. And when there were 10 people vying for a chance to speak, you soon learnt to be quick in your thinking and to speak to the point, so that someone else also had a chance to speak.I am a fourth generation farmer in Australia and, because of this, I am proud to say that I'm from the land, I'm on the land and I'm for the land. My great grandfather came to Australia in the mid-1800s and was the first licensee of the Grand Hotel in Millicent, which is in the electorate of Barker. He then went on to be the third licensee of the Somerset Hotel, also in Millicent. My great-grandfather was often heard to say that while some people died of thirst Australians were born with one, and that ensured his success as a publican.He then bought a farming property at Lucindale in the Barker electorate called Ardune, which our relatives held until 1962 when, interestingly, it was sold to the father of the present member for Wannon, Mr David Hawker. My grandfather, T.R. Secker, grew up on Ardune, before eventually becoming the manager of the Mortlock properties in South Australia. Much of that land was eventually bequeathed to the state and was used for soldier settler farms and the famous Mortlock Library.In 1933 my grandfather bought a farm at Cockaleechie on Eyre Peninsula. My father moved onto it immediately at the age of 16, and named the property `Maluka'. Maluka is an Aboriginal term for big white boss, which was fairly apt because my grandfather was six foot seven inches tall, or nearly two metres in the modern language. The term `Maluka' came from the book We of the Never Never by Mrs Aneas Gunn, and it was with great pleasure and feeling that my family visited the Maluka graves last year at Mataranka Station in the Northern Territory.It might be coincidental, but my family has a special interest in the Alice Springs to Darwin railway because it will be known as the Maluka Railway Line. I am pleased to say that this government, the South Australian state government and the Northern Territory government have finally made a commitment to building this railway line, and future generations of Australians will reap the benefits of this visionary project. It will, of course, open up further export opportunities for the people of Barker. I liken it to the scale of the Snowy River Scheme and the Ord River Project, and I intend to be around at its completion.Last week I was pleased to represent the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, at the opening of the Watervalley Weir on Tom Brinkworth's property in the upper south-east. The Watervalley Weir is part of the visionary Upper South East Integrated Catchment Program to which our government has provided a further $1.5 million this year to continue this fine scheme.This is positive environmentalism of the best sort that is improving the farming lands by reducing salinity as well as making the magnificent wetlands at Mandina and Cortina stations healthy again. My father and I were planting trees over 30 years ago, before it became the trendy thing to do, and we were adopting minimum tillage practices at about the same time for our cropping programs. At present, our family, like many others, is adopting clay spreading practices that have revolutionised the dry non-wetting sands affecting some of our land. These types of projects do change the environment for the better, and we are all beneficiaries.Like my father and two of my uncles I served with local government in South Australia, and I have taken great pleasure in meeting up with many of my former colleagues—and with people who are at present serving local government—during the opening of this 39th parliament. I served for 11 years at the Mount Barker Council as a councillor and Deputy Mayor.Of course, Mount Barker, whilst not in my electorate now, was named after Captain Collet Barker, after whom the seat of Barker was named. Captain Barker was the explorer, sent by Charles Sturt, to solve the mystery of the mouth of the river Murray—that great lifeblood of Australia. On 30 April 1831, having reached the outlet to the sea, Captain Barker swam across, climbed a sandhill and disappeared. It was later learnt that he had been speared by Aborigines and his body thrown into the sea, which is one fate I do not wish to replicate.One philosophy I have is that, wherever possible, local people should decide their own fates. For this reason, I am in favour of devolution of power back to state and local governments. I have been disturbed by the trend over recent years to centralise government in Canberra over the years. Further to this, I believe that individuals should have the right and responsibilities to decide their own fates.It has been said that we lose a little more of our freedom every time the parliament sits and makes laws. Having studied economics and politics at Flinders University from 1990 to 1993 for my degree, I found a lot to agree with from the writings of J.S. Mill, Hayek and Milton Friedman.The harm principle of J.S. Mill—which, paraphrased, says that individuals should be able to do as they please provided that no harm is done to another individual—is a strong basis for my philosophy. We can encourage people to take sensible actions, we can educate people to take sensible actions, but we should not force people to take sensible actions, because ultimately it is about freedom of choices. For this reason, I abhor compulsory voting or even compulsory attendance at polling booths at voting time. The right to vote also entails the right not to vote.If I had to name a political hero in life, the name Bert Kelly would come immediately to mind. This country owes so much to the former member for Wakefield, whose tireless campaign against the inefficiencies caused by tariffs and the ultimate cost to consumers and exporters has influenced so many in this House.Just three months ago, my predecessor, Ian McLachlan, surprised us with his sudden announcement to retire from federal politics. I wish Ian and his wife, Janet, and family a wonderful future. I do not think that we have seen the last of Ian McLachlan in public service to Australia. The morning after this announcement, many friends rang and encouraged me to stand for preselection and the rest is history. I am proud to be elected as the member for Barker.The transition from being a humble farmer in Keith—I might say, before anybody else does, that some would say I have a lot to be humble about—to representing the electorate of Barker in Federal Parliament has been a rapid change. But I have had an enormous amount of support and advice from people in the electorate of Barker and to whom I will always be grateful.Sue Charlton, my tireless campaign manager, and her husband, Peter, worked well and above the call of duty. Their enthusiasm and effort was fantastic. Scott Dixon and Steve Ronson were also an integral part of my campaign and I thank them sincerely for their dedication.Several of my colleagues have also greatly encouraged me, and Senator Jeannie Ferris stands out for her friendship and advice in recent months. Senator Minchin, Senator Ferguson, Senator Chapman and the member for Mayo, the member for Boothby and the member for Wakefield have also been there when I needed support.Several South Australian state MPs, including MLCs Angus Redford, Legh Davis, Caroline Schaeffer, John Dawkins and Peter Lewis, were also helpful, as was former MLC, the Hon. Ren Degaris. I thank them for their part in getting me elected as the member for Barker.Special thanks must also go to the South Australian division of the Liberal Party, particularly to Jim Bonner, our state director, and Cory Bernardi, our state president.The electorate of Barker is one of the richest and most beautiful parts of Australia. We produce world-class wine, rich dense forest and prime farming land. At 54,000 square kilometres there is a lot of area to cover, but it will always be a pleasure and a privilege.Barker starts at the Victorian border and stretches from Port MacDonnell, below Mount Gambier, on the south coast, up to the edge of the Riverland. It then crosses the Murray River to take in Murray Bridge, much of Langhorne Creek and over to Aldinga Beach, as well as taking in the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island, which is Australia's third largest island. Kangaroo Island is 150 kilometres long and 80 kilometres wide. It has a permanent population of just over 4,000 people. It is also a very popular tourist destination because of its natural beauty.Some 22 per cent of the population of Barker are directly employed in primary production, making it the third most rural seat in Australia. Whilst the electorate has only eight per cent of South Australia's population, it produces 40 per cent of the state's wealth—an amazing statistic.Notwithstanding the time taken to travel the electorate, it is a wonderfully rich electorate. Some examples come to mind. In South Australia, Barker produces 73 per cent of its lucerne hay and nearly all of its lucerne seed. The upper south-east is the lucerne growing capital of Australia and probably the world, producing about 6,000 tonnes of lucerne seed a year—enough to pasture about 1.5 million hectares each year. Seventy per cent of that seed is exported to the Middle East, South America and the EC.Barker produces 74 per cent of the state's pasture seed, 95 per cent of the sunflower seed, and 70 per cent of safflower. Some 95 per cent of the cultivated turf comes from Barker and 99.9 per cent of its vegetable seed. Seventy-one per cent of our potato seed is produced locally and so are 86 per cent of swedes and 66 per cent of sweetcorn.Nearly 90 per cent of South Australia's pine forests are in Barker, as is most of the growing blue gum industry, with pine forests in South Australia producing nearly $2 billion worth of produce each year.The premier grape growing areas of Langhorne Creek, the Coonawarra, Padthaway, Wrattonbully and the Limestone Coast are also in Barker. One of the pleasures people in Barker—and I am sure people in this chamber and throughout Australia—often have is the opportunity to sample the quality wine produced by this region. The south-east of South Australia has just won the national tourist award for the first time as the premier tourist region and I am privileged to live in it.The upper south-east is rather unique in that its unemployment rate is only about two per cent. Would it not be wonderful if that could be mirrored all over Australia? This also brings a new challenge to provide housing for a rapidly growing labour force—an almost unique situation in Australia.In conclusion, let me paraphrase a prayer we had in local government: give us the ability to listen carefully, speak wisely and make decisions in the best interest of this great country for we are the chosen few with great responsibilities to shoulder. I aim to listen carefully, I aim to speak wisely and I aim to make the right decisions because this is a great country that I am proud to serve as the member for Barker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Sydney, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies. 12:06:0082Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP01—I am honoured today to come into this chamber as the elected representative for the people of Sydney. Our city has a character of its own, apparent to visitors who see a vibrant, modern city with precious heritage areas and incomparable natural beauty. But the character of Sydney is more than skin deep. Sydney is a living city which holds within it the history of all which has passed on the shores of Port Jackson. Like the rest of this country, Sydney is built on stolen land. I take the opportunity today of saying to the Eora people, `I am sorry,' and to the stolen generation, `I am sorry.'My electorate has a history as a place where ordinary people have acted collectively to combat injustice and to fight for their rights. It has a Labor history. I have been fortunate in my activism to have had the guidance of many of these great Labor people, such as former Senator Bruce Childs who encouraged me and supported me. He is the finest example of a self-effacing, modest collectivist; and I am pleased he is here today. Jeanette McHugh, Ann Symonds, Robert Tickner and, of course, the former member for Sydney, the Hon. Peter Baldwin, have been examples of parliamentarians who have used their offices for the good of working people. In following Peter I succeed a most distinguished member, who will be remembered as one of Labor's foremost intellectuals.In Sydney we are famous for our terrace houses. Sought after now for their beauty and proximity to the city, these terraces originally housed large families close to the factories where they spent their working lives. These rows of terraces were the site of struggles against evictions during the 1930s. The anti-eviction movement saw conflict emerge in the working class suburbs of Surry Hills, Newtown, Glebe and Redfern, culminating in serious confrontations with police. These confrontations saw thousands of local people gather in solidarity with tenants. They were the largest spontaneous demonstrations of the 1930s. The result of this sustained and organised activity by working people was changes to the Tenancy Act in New South Wales—the fair rents and lessees relief bill.The green bans were another proud period in my electorate's local history when resident action groups, unionists, students and others combined to protect the homes of local residents and the heritage values of the areas in which they lived. The areas saved included the Rocks; Waterloo; Woolloomooloo; Victoria Street, Potts Point; the Glebe Estate and many fine buildings in the city centre including the ANZ Bank, the Colonial Mutual building, the National Mutual building in Martin Place, the Theatre Royal and the Congregational church in Pitt Street.I am proud to have known and worked with Tom Uren, whose love for and commitment to the working people of Sydney was so important in this struggle. Federal Labor intervened on the side of tenants in the Glebe Estate in July 1974 and in Woolloomooloo in June 1975, and the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads recommended that many inner city freeways not be built. Subsequent changes to planning laws conceded the significance of community contribution to planning decisions.Sydney is also the setting of the struggle for decent wages and conditions for dock workers, both recently and in the past. The infamous `hungry mile' saw dock workers queue for up to 12 hours outside docks to be picked or discarded each morning as the bosses decided.They tramped there in their legions on the morning dark and coldTo beg the right to slave for bread from Sydney's lords of goldThey toil and sweat in slavery, t`would make the devil smileTo see the Sydney wharfies tramping down the hungry mile.As the Depression lifted in 1936, the dock workers got organised into a gang system to ensure regular work and income and freedom from victimisation. This proud tradition of industrial organisation came to public notice again recently when maritime workers were forced to defence their pay and conditions from a government hysterical with hatred for them. We are steeped in this tradition of collective action, community activism, and it is that which gave birth to the Labor Party. Sydney is a Labor area because we understand in our bones that it is Labor which represents working people. Although there are heated debates at times about the date and place of the birth of the Australian Labor Party, I wish to claim that honour for the historic suburb of Balmain, which is also in the electorate that I am proud to represent. Labor tradition gives Balmain the honour of having established the first local Labor Electoral League on 4 April 1891. By June 1891, 45 Labor electoral leagues were established in New South Wales and in that same month 35 official Labor candidates were elected to the New South Wales parliament. We continue that tradition.We are Labor because we believe ordinary people of goodwill working together can achieve positive change. That is why we are members of our unions. That is why we are community activists. I owe a debt of gratitude to the 1,300 ALP branch members in the electorate of Sydney who selected me through our precious rank and file system. These branch members worked on the Labor campaign for Sydney with a commitment which was generous and unstinting. First among equals of course is my magnificent campaign director, Jenny McAllister, whose calm purpose and excellent judgment were the ballast in the campaign ship, and of course my friend and office manager Miriam Williamson, who has a true Labor heart. I am pleased that both of them are here today as well.Branch members are ordinary people who dedicate themselves to achieving change through democratic means, often with a considerable investment of time and energy and without thought for personal reward. They are people who treasure democracy, who understand the need for vigilance and who are prepared to accept some responsibility for making this a better country.In 1974, Jimmy Carter talked of first reading Tolstoy's War and Peace, noting:. . . the course of human events, even the greatest historical events, is not determined by the leaders of a nation or a state, like presidents or governors or senators. They are controlled by the combined wisdom and courage and commitment and discernment and unselfishness and compassion and love and idealism of the common ordinary people.My parents, who are here today, are ordinary people also. They are modest, hardworking, generous people who have shown me unqualified love and support, as have all my family, my many kind and loving friends, and my patient and caring partner, Michael Coutts Trotter. My parents, like many first generation Australians, have made a huge sacrifice in leaving their homes, their families and everything familiar to come to a new land. I believe this country has benefited in ways we are yet to understand from the trust and optimism they have shown in coming here. I am proud to live in a country where my birth is not my destiny and humble enough to know that it is fortune and the sacrifices, support and encouragement of others that have allowed me to achieve anything I have achieved.We are Labor because we have a positive vision for the future. A democratic South Africa, led by one of the 20th century's greatest men, President Nelson Mandela, 10 years ago would have seemed an impossible dream. That General Pinochet would one day be brought to justice for his role in the deaths and disappearances of thousands of Chileans whose only crime was to be democrats must too have seemed an impossible dream.The hopes that we have for the rest of the world—a referendum on independence in East Timor, the democratically elected government of Burma taking its rightful place with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi at its helm—seem distant and difficult today, but they are possible and we must continue to work as though they are possible. When we lose our dreams for the future, we are defeated.I am committed to a thinking party, a party of reform and progress. I was honoured to be part of the process of re-examining our national platform in the lead-up to the 1998 national conference. This process forced us to look closely at our vision for the nation and the path we had mapped out to attain our goal. Our starting point is that all Australians deserve a secure, decent, dignified and meaningful way of life. I believe we all deserve to have access to the good things this country has to offer and to the necessities of life. I believe all Australians deserve to have affordable food, housing, education, health care, jobs, security and leisure, a clean environment and a safe and tolerant society.Each of us has issues which are in the foreground of our field of vision. One of these for me, having worked to prevent domestic violence, is the right of all people to live safely and free from fear. It is our right to feel safe at home, at work and on the streets, yet every day women in particular live with the reality or the threat of violence.These are some of the issues that we must address as a nation, and yet the only proposals of those sitting opposite are to cut and to privatise. These proposals are not even original. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan pioneered this type of state-led selfishness in the 1980s. They do not like government; that is the problem. The only role this Prime Minister sees for the public sphere is to structure it out of existence, to outsource every responsibility.The public sector is like a snake eating its tail—an ever smaller circle. In fact, listening to the Governor-General yesterday, I was embarrassed that this government's sole vision for the future is a new tax. Their sole plan for reducing unemployment is to make workers cheaper to hire and easier to sack. This government have no vision for Australia. They have no trust in the Australian people and they have no optimism.It is our role as Labor members to articulate that positive vision for a better Australia and to breathe life into it and to fight for it. I see my role as a Labor member of parliament as standing beside the electors of Sydney. Having chosen me as their representative, they have entrusted me with a role in the struggles which face us as a community. I will do everything in my power to defend their interests against the viciousness of this government. In part, that means standing by those people struggling on local issues: to protect Waterloo, Erskineville and Miller's Point post offices, to ensure working-class people can continue to afford to live in the inner city and to keep Sydney a living city.At a national level I will defend the interests of ordinary people. I will do whatever I can to ensure that a goods and services tax is not introduced on all of the necessities of life, to ensure that working conditions are protected and to ensure that services are not cut and our environment is not destroyed. But this does not mean trying to be all things to all people. Australians crave political representatives who clearly articulate a vision for this country, who state their values and invite Australians who share those values to walk beside them. Edmund Burke said in the 1700s:Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.Of course, in this day and age, particularly with the number of Labor women returned at the last election, his choice of pronouns would not suit, but the sentiment remains true.We do a great disservice to the people we represent if we assume that they are looking for easy answers or glib pronouncements. We have to be prepared to argue through complex and subtle arguments. We must be prepared to rethink our own assumptions; to see merit in our opponents where it exists. We are not helped in Australia by a media which screams `backflip' every time a policy is amended or adjusted. We owe it to the electorate to engage with them in serious debate about difficult issues, not seek a populist escape hatch when it come to difficult issues such as immigration or an adequate tax base.Political trust is not only about parliamentary representatives winning the trust of the electorate by saying what we mean and doing what we say; it is about us trusting the electorate to understand complex issues and to make decisions for the collective good, not just the hip pocket.The government went mining for what is worst in us: selfishness, racism and fear of change. The fact that the Australian Labor Party is now the biggest party in the parliament shows how unsuccessful that mining expedition was. We achieved over 51 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. When Australians got to know the Howard government, they found that they did not like what they saw. Between the 1996 election and the 1998 election, 600,000 Australians changed their votes. The Prime Minister lost the trust of 4,500 people every week over the period of his government.We are Labor because we believe the strong have a responsibility to look after the weak and that government plays a role in that. When in government we instituted plans which made this care a reality. We took our plan for a public health system which did not discriminate on the basis of the ability to pay to the electorate three times—in 1972, 1974 and 1983. We succeeded in building a health system in which wealth was not a prerequisite for quality care. Medibank and later Medicare have become a central part of the reason we view ourselves as an egalitarian society. This government has set out to destroy that system.Our Working Nation program was the most successful response to long-term unemployment ever. This government has just cut Centrelink staff by 5,000, despite the fact that only one in 10 calls is answered, despite the fact that the number of young and long-term unemployed people continues to grow.We do not expect, as the Prime Minister does, that charity should take the place of the social security safety net. We believe, of course, that conditions should exist for people to meet their full potential—and for most Australians that means access to the labour market and independence. But we say that those who need our help are not charity cases; they are citizens who have the rights of a citizen to participate in the work force or to access that social security safety net.One of the most pressing issues facing us at the moment is the attempt by this government to prepare the electorate for an assault on minimum wages. I see the storm clouds gathering again on the horizon. Two recent reports on the US experience and an IMF recommendation have called for the lowering or abolition of Australia's minimum wage. There is no clear evidence that lower minimum wages are responsible for low unemployment figures in the United States; there is some evidence to the contrary.Many additional factors work in the United States, including an interventionist pump-priming government, large investment funds which are prepared to fund small and medium enterprises and to risk money as venture capital, and high levels of immigration. Certainly, the majority of jobs created in the United States have not been at the lower end of the wage scale. But why let the facts get in the way of a scheme to pay people less?Business will support any plan that lowers the cost of inputs, but is it fair or necessary? By no means: there is more than a whiff of obscenity about a proposal—put by highly paid consultants and spruiked by a minister of the Crown who earns over $120,000—to cut the wages of people who earn $374.90 before tax for an entire week's work.Shop assistants, receptionists, farmhands, waiters, child-care workers, delivery persons, and non-trade metal workers have suffered most under the first round of the coalition's industrial relations changes. They are the same people the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business wants to make it easier to sack. They are the outworkers, the part-time and casual workers, the young people, women and migrants—those who are the most vulnerable workers in a community.Do not imagine that this government's plans are balanced or reasonable. Remember that the minister for workplace relations was quoted as saying in July this year:Never forget the history of politics and never forget which side we are on. We're on the side of making profit. We're on the side of people owning private capital.We know which side we are on, too. To misquote Bruce Springsteen's Ballad of Tom Joad :Wherever there's someone fighting for a place to standOr a decent job or a helping handWherever someone is struggling to be freeLook in their eyes and you'll see—- us.We will stand beside the most vulnerable and protect them from these ravages—because we are Labor. When in government again, we will build an environment in which they can provide for themselves and their families with dignity—because we are Labor. We will create decent jobs with fair pay—because we are Labor. And if they need a helping hand, we will be there—because we are Labor.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!Debate (on motion by Mrs Vale) adjourned.Bills86r60786Bill presented by Mr Vaile, and read a first time.8612:26:0086Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The wool industry is facing some very difficult decisions about its future. In spite of all the work put in by the government, and particularly the efforts of my predecessor John Anderson—as well as the efforts of the industry's own leaders—the wool industry remains deeply affected by the collapse in the market for wool. This collapse is in the wake of the Asian economic crisis and poor consumer confidence in the key European and Japanese markets.The government fully appreciates the reasons for the wool industry's call for assistance to alleviate whatever pressures there are on the wool market that are in its scope to control. The government's decision to freeze stockpile sales through to 30 June 1999 was a response to this request from the industry, and followed a long period of intense consultation on the future directions of the industry.The decision reflects the desire of the government to contribute to the alleviation of the market situation at a time when the fresh wool clip is entering the market, and when privately held stocks are also at high levels. My intention as I take up my new responsibilities as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is to continue the government effort directed at removing the obstacles to full commercial management of the stockpile in the interests of its owners.This bill is my first step in this process. The purpose of this bill is twofold. It will freeze sales from the Wool International stockpile and, more importantly, end the debate about the management of the stockpile by starting a process of taking responsibility for its management out of the hands of the Wool International Board—which is constrained by statutory obligations—and placing it under the control of a new private sector entity in which the directors will be responsible to the shareholders who own the stockpile.The freeze will allow the industry some breathing space—an opportunity to focus on the real issues, such as: how to increase demand for their product, how to increase farm productivity and how to improve the quality of our wool to better meet customer requirements. It is both possible and prudent to suspend stockpile sales and transfer Wool International's business to the private sector at this time because of the now low debt load carried by Wool International and the greatly reduced size of the stockpile.By way of background to this bill, it may be useful to consider some of the events leading to the government's decision. Last year the government passed the Wool International Amendment Act 1997 which provided for the liquidation of Wool International once its key functions of selling down the stockpile and retiring the associated debt had been completed.Under the current legislative framework, the stockpile disposal, and consequent liquidation of Wool International, was to have been completed by the end of 2000. The target date in the act for retirement of the debt was 31 December 1998. In March this year, the government responded to calls from the wool industry to provide some relief from the exceptional combination of events facing the wool industry, by extending the target date for Wool International debt retirement by up to six months to 30 June 1999. This meant some of the pressure on Wool International to maintain sale rates at a higher level than would be commercially prudent was reduced significantly. However, market conditions deteriorated further and, in light of the very difficult circumstances faced by growers as the new season wool began to come onto the market, the government decided on 4 August 1998 to freeze sales from the stockpile until 30 June 1999. The Board of Wool International initially complied with the government's decision, but had to resume sales when the calling of the election prevented legislation from being passed in the short term. Following the government's election victory, and its restatement of the freeze decision, the board of Wool International has again suspended sales. If passed, this bill will now formally freeze all sales from the stockpile until 30 June 1999.As a point of clarification, the freeze is not intended to stop Wool International from honouring existing contracts. To do so would add further unwanted uncertainty to the troubled wool market, as well as providing Wool International with greater difficulties in maintaining its customer base for when it resumes sales.With regard to the proposed path to privatisation of the management of the stockpile, this bill allows Wool International to provide information and support for the process, and to commit funds to it. The government has asked the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing to examine the most efficient and effective method of transferring stockpile responsibilities to Wool International equity holders, while keeping costs to a prudent minimum. The Office of Asset Sales will, of course, engage professional business and legal advisers to assist in its examination of the process. The government's role will be purely to hand over the business of Wool International to the new commercial entity, and the government will not be involved in shaping its commercial activities. That will be the responsibility of the board of the new commercial entity, who will be expected to present a business plan to their stakeholders in line with normal commercial practice.At this point, I would like to pass on my thanks to the board and staff of Wool International, who have carried out their legislated duties in a thoroughly professional and com mendable way, in sometimes difficult circumstances. I can assure honourable members that, in developing the details of the proposed privatisation, the government will seek to ensure that the employees and staff of Wool International will not be disadvantaged. I commend the bill to honourable members and the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr O'Connor) adjourned.Miscellaneous8812:34:0088Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—I move:(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the introduction and passage through all stages without delay of the following bills: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1998 Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 (2) That each of the bills stand referred to the Main Committee following the adjournment of debate on the motion for the second reading.This is a procedural motion to facilitate the passage of this legislation. This legislation has been before the chamber previously but, with the election and the election of new members, it is appropriate and proper that this legislation again come before the House. It does so by agreement with the opposition. These matters will be dealt with in the Main Committee in the balance of today, with the intention that these matters be referred back to the House for final passage by the conclu sion of today's business. This is a sensible and efficient means of dealing with the business of the House. I do record my appreciation of the cooperation of the opposition in achieving this sensible outcome.NaN:00:0088McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—In the main, the opposition supports this motion. In the main, it has been a process in which there has been cooperation and about which we are happy to continue to offer cooperation. It is an outcome which will be good for the legislative program. I want to mention two positive elements and express one concern about the way it has been conducted. The positive thing, which I will be very brief about because the Leader of the House said it, is that it enables efficient dealing with a series of bills that in all but one case the House has debated before, so we should be able to deal with them quickly and expeditiously, as we are, and that is appropriate.I appreciate the government's cooperation in agreeing to our suggestion that they should go to the Main Committee, because it has facilitated a number of first speeches being made at the scheduled time in the interests of families and friends who were here. I appreciate that cooperation.Our concern is that we were advised so late about the list of these bills that were going to be dealt with—so late that on one or two occasions we were not able to deal with them through the normal party processes of the shadow ministry or the caucus. We got the list at 10 past five on Friday, having previously not had an indication that these bills were going to be dealt with in this manner.There was time, I think, for it to have been dealt with otherwise. It was a cause of disappointment to us and frustration to some of the backbench colleagues who had not had a chance to be involved in discussion in party room procedures about matters on which they have strong views. I refer, of course, to the child support legislation, which is a bill about which almost everybody in this House has strong views. I accept that it is the same bill that we dealt with before and we are dealing with it on the basis of our previous decision, but nevertheless there are a whole lot of new members who have views about this who would like to have had a chance to speak in the party room; I do not object to the expedition with which it is being dealt here. That was unfortunate, and we hope that that does not recur. But in the other two principal ways this is a matter being well handled and cooperatively handled, and we are grateful for that. We hope that the negative aspects of it will not be repeated.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills89r61489Bill presented by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.8912:38:0089Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 is a critical piece of legislation which introduces for the first time in Australia a comprehensive regulatory framework for all Commonwealth radiation and nuclear activity. The ARPANS Bill closes a current gap in regulation whereby state and territory government activities and private undertakings are regulated by state and territory radiation laws, but Commonwealth agencies have operated without corresponding Commonwealth oversight and regulation.The bill applies to all Commonwealth entities and their employees and to non-Commonwealth entities when they are contracted by the Commonwealth to undertake radiation or nuclear activities. This includes all Commonwealth departments, such as the Department of Defence, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and bodies corporate such as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.Under the provisions of the bill, no Commonwealth entity can deal with radioactive materials or radiation apparatus or any aspect of a nuclear facility unless licensed to do so in accordance with this legislation. This means that Commonwealth activities ranging from using an x-ray machine to the safe and appropriate construction and operation of the proposed replacement nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights are prohibited unless a licence has been issued in accordance with this bill. The bill provides for exemptions to the general prohibition, including allowing for exemptions for certain defence and security activities in the national interest. Criteria for other exemptions on the basis of very low risk will be set out in regulations under the legislation.The legislation will be administered by an independent statutory office holder, the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. The functions of the CEO will include regulating in accordance with legislation Commonwealth radiation and nuclear activities. This will include monitoring and enforcing compliance with the legislation; working with the states and territories to develop uniform regulatory controls throughout Australia; informing and advising the government and the public on radiation protection and nuclear safety; and undertaking research and providing services of a high standard to ensure radiation protection and nuclear safety.The functions and resources of the currently existing Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Australian Radiation Laboratory will be combined to form ARPANSA to assist the CEO with his or her functions. ARPANSA will continue and appropriately expand the excellent policy development and research currently undertaken by the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Australian Radiation Laboratory.It is important that the CEO has access to expert advice and import from a range of sources, including the community. The bill therefore provides for the establishment of the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council. Members of this council will be appointed by the minister and the council will include representatives from the community and states and territories as well as others with appropriate experience. Each member will be appointed on the basis of their standing and expertise in fields relevant to radiation protection and nuclear safety.The CEO and the council will oversee the work of the two standing committees established in the bill, the Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee. The standing committees will also comprise experts in the field and include community and public interest representatives, including people from the communities hosting facilities. The value of comprehensive Commonwealth legislation and a national regulatory body such as this has been recognised in many fora.This legislation was a key recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste report, No Time to Waste, which was produced with the close involvement of all political parties. This bill incorporates many of the committee's recommendations and delivers on the government's commitment to close the regulatory gap identified by that committee whereby Commonwealth agencies have operated without comprehensive Commonwealth oversight and regulation. The regulation of Commonwealth activities is also strongly supported by all state and territory governments and the bill has been crafted following consultation with states and territories.The bill is substantially the same as the bill passed by the previous House of Representatives. Provisions have been included clarifying that powers exercised under the act must be exercised in accordance with international agreements and defining the membership of the standing committees.I believe that this bill will result in a centre of excellence for regulation, advice, research and services supporting nuclear safety and radiation protection of employees, the public and the environment. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned. Bills90r61590Bill presented by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, and read a first time.9012:44:0090Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is an adjunct to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 . The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 provides the capacity for annual charges to be made for licences issued under the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998. This is in line with the government's decision that Commonwealth entities regulated under the ARPANS Bill should bear the costs of such regulation, ensuring that there will be no additional burden on the Commonwealth or the public purse.To give effect to the government's decision, Commonwealth entities such as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation will be charged licence application fees and annual licence charges. The former is dealt with in the main bill; however, as annual charges are treated as taxes and the Constitution requires that taxes must be dealt with separately in purpose specific legislation, this separate bill has been prepared. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills90r61390Bill presented by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop, and read a first time.9112:47:0091Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill is an adjunct to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 . This bill serves four key purposes. Firstly, the bill details changes that are necessary to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987, the ANSTO Act, as a result of the introduction of the ARPANS Bill. This includes repealing those parts of the ANSTO Act that established the Nuclear Safety Bureau and the Safety Review Committee, as these bodies are superseded by the role of the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, and by the supporting council and committees.Secondly, this bill makes transitional arrangements for the transfer of the assets and liabilities of the Nuclear Safety Bureau to the Commonwealth and confers on the CEO of ARPANSA the powers of the Director of the Nuclear Safety Bureau in relation to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. This will ensure that at no stage are the operations and functions of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation unregulated.Thirdly, the bill provides for transitional arrangements to cover the operation of controlled facilities and handling of radiation sources while applications for licences to cover these facilities and activities are being made under the ARPANS Bill. Finally, the bill repeals the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978. That act provided for the development and endorsement of codes of practice, which will now be undertaken under the auspices of ARPANSA.The consequential amendments set out in this bill will ensure the appropriate and seamless operation of two Commonwealth acts: the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998. I commend this bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills91r62391Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.9112:50:0091Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 to give effect to initiatives announced in the 1998-99 budget. This bill was originally introduced on 25 June 1998 during the winter sittings and lapsed when parliament was prorogued on 31 August 1998. It is now being reintroduced.These initiatives will provide the sum of $21 million for the introduction of full service schools over three years from 1998 to deliver additional support for schools to develop innovative programs and services that address the needs of young people returning to school following the introduction of the youth allowance and for current students who are at risk of not completing year 12 or making a successful transition from school to training, further education or employment.In addition, this initiative will provide $40.2 million for the extension of the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools—NALSAS—Strategy to support enhanced and expanded Asian languages and Asian studies provision through all school systems in order to improve Australia's capacity and preparedness to interact internationally, particularly with key Asian economies. The bill also contains a number of other minor amendments which will:. allow for flexibility of funding allocations under the Literacy and Country Areas programs so that funding allocated to state and territory government and non-government education authorities under these programs is based on relative need using the most up-to-date Australian Bureau of Statistics census data;. change funding schedules for capital grants for government and non-government schools to insert amounts of capital funding for 2001, 2002 and 2003; and. vary the amounts of 1997 and 1998 recurrent and capital grants in respect of the 1997 and 1998 supplementation and provide for its flow-on effects for 1999 and 2000.The bill will also rectify an inadvertent omission in the original act for grants for expenditure on special education at or in connection with non-government centres to allow the full range of special education services to be provided under the legislation; incorporate a technical amendment to clearly define the role of the Governor-General in making regulations under the act; and incorporate a minor stylistic change to the format of the act.The government is committed to reducing youth unemployment and believes that it is important to encourage our young people under 18 to complete their schooling or, if they leave school early, to move on to further training or employment. The youth allowance is an important element of the government's strategy to achieve these goals. Youth allowance, which began on July l 1998, is a major social policy reform which provides more financial incentives for young people to develop the skills they so desperately need to improve their chances of finding a job. The youth allowance is a big win for young people. It means students are no longer financially disadvantaged in comparison to young unemployed.From January 1999, in order to receive the youth allowance, eligible young people under 18 years who have not completed year 12 or equivalent must be in full-time education or training, unless specifically exempted. In recognition of the possible additional costs associated with these high needs students the Commonwealth has established the Full Service Schools Program. It will target students who are not likely to benefit from mainstream pathways and enable them to achieve quality learning outcomes. The $21 million for the Full Service Schools Program is part of a package of Commonwealth initiatives which provides additional funding to schools, industry and community groups to provide education and training for these young people.Funds for Full Service Schools projects will be directed to schools in areas with the highest numbers of young people affected by the implementation of the youth allowance. Funds will be available to schools for a variety of activities including the employment of specialist teachers or counsellors; providing professional development for teachers and other staff; delivering and developing special courses such as courses in pre-vocational education or training, and assisting students to access other government and community support services. To facilitate links between the government and non-government sectors and to ensure comprehensive services are provided in any given regional area, a steering committee will manage the implementation of Full Service Schools in each state and territory.The NALSAS Strategy is a cooperative initiative between Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The NALSAS Strategy assists government and non-government schools to improve participation and proficiency levels in language learning, particularly in four targeted Asian languages—Japanese, Chinese (Mandarin), Indonesian and Korean, and to introduce or increase Asian studies content across the curriculum.Commonwealth funding is matched by the states and territories. Most of the Commonwealth funds are paid direct to the state, territory and non-government education systems on the basis of student enrolments up to the limit of the available funds. Part of the Commonwealth's contribution is also used to fund projects developed in collaboration with the states and territories to support the implementation of the strategy. The Commonwealth agreed to fund the program for four years, with further funding subject to an evaluation of the program. New funds of $40.2 million were provided in the budget to take the program through to the end of 1999 to allow full consideration of the evaluation. This extra funding for the NALSAS Strategy will be used to provide continued support to teachers and students.The government's funding policies for schools will assist in ensuring quality educational outcomes for students in government and non-government schools. Total direct Commonwealth schools funding will provide in excess of $16.5 billion for schools over the period 1997 to 2000. The Commonwealth budget papers show that funding for schools is estimated to increase each year to 1999-2000, with an average increase of around 2.5 per cent per year. This funding affirms the Commonwealth's commitment to schooling in Australia. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills93r59593Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.9312:57:0093Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The important role higher education plays in Australia's social and economic development is the rationale for the government's substantial investment in it, and policies designed to ensure that we realise the greatest possible individual and collective benefits.Australia already has a good higher education system, but there is always scope for improvement. The government has a number of objectives which flow from this position.. It aims to continue to increase access to post secondary education, including higher education, so that all who can benefit will have access. The higher education system must offer choices that meet varied needs. Lifelong learning is already a feature of our education system but we need to ensure a whole-of-life focus. We need a good foundation in primary school as well as opportunities for later reskilling.. The government also recognises that collaboration between universities and industry is critical to expanding our knowledge base and generating wealth. By providing enhanced opportunities for university researchers and research training students to collaborate with industry, Australia will be better able to position itself in the global knowledge market.The various provisions of this bill should be seen in the context of the government's pursuit of these goals.The government has created an extra 10,000 Commonwealth funded places for undergraduate students in the past two years. In 1998 the Commonwealth will fund 361,925 undergraduate student places in universities. This is a record number. To this figure can be added enrolments in addition to those undergraduate places funded by the Commonwealth. To encourage universities to offer these places, the government is offering partial funding of about $2,500 a place. In 1998 the universities offered around 29,000 of these extra places. Not only is the government providing additional opportunities for undergraduate students, but it is also extending greater opportunities for postgraduate research training students. The number of research students has increased each year under the coalition government. We will also be providing additional funding to James Cook University of North Queensland to enhance access to higher education in that region.This government has confirmed its commitment to maintain public funding levels for higher education. This year, universities will receive $5.5 billion from the government (including HECS contributions). Commonwealth funding for each full-time equivalent student will be more than $11,400, a significant increase on 1996 funding.Prior to the election, the government announced that it would increase collaboration between universities and industry by provid ing an additional $58.1 million over three financial years for the Strategic Partnerships-Industry Research and Training Scheme. Under this bill, an additional $1.6 million will be provided to universities in 1999. A further $22.8 million will be provided in 2000.Consistent with this government's commitment to maintaining public funding levels for higher education, the bill provides for a total net increase of $9,693,000 to 1998 funds. This funding provides supplementation for price movements and additional superannuation expenses incurred by institutions. It also includes an increase of $5,943,000 in the 1998 funding limit for special grants, offset by an equivalent underexpenditure in 1997. The bill also provides funding in total for the years 1999 and 2000. Funding for 1999 is increased by $3,885,393,000 to $3,893,640,000, and the funding limit for 2000 is set at $3,706,333,000.In legislating funds for 1999 and 2000, the bill confirms to higher education institutions the overall funding levels detailed in the Higher education funding report for the 1998-2000 triennium. This bill also demonstrates this government's support for the continued growth of Australia's education and training export industry. The bill amends the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 to provide funding for expenditure on the international promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International. AEI was previously known as the Australian International Education Foundation. The new name reflects new funding arrangements and the new direction set for it by the government.In 1998 AEI will receive $1,016,000. In 1999 this will rise to $2,468,000, and by 2000 AEI will be funded to the extent of $3,883,000. It will have a number of key responsibilities in the areas of marketing, government-to-government coordination, research, facilitating access to markets, providing information, and awareness raising. This measure will improve promotion of Australia's international education and training industry.For a number of years successive Commonwealth governments have provided funding to the University of Notre Dame Australia for its Broome campus on a year-by-year basis. To provide greater certainty to the university and to allow it to build on the valuable work that it does in Broome, the bill includes the University of Notre Dame Australia in the act so that it is able to receive grants for operating purposes. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills94r62294Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.9413:03:0094McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The government recognises the importance of an active, innovative and vibrant Australian film industry—both on cultural and economic grounds. The portrayal of uniquely Australian perspectives and stories is important to us as a nation. Australians are proud of the high standard and successes of our film industry, and there is increasing interest in contributing to that success through avenues such as investment.We also recognise that the production of film is a high risk business and that it is necessary to provide incentives for the private sector to invest in the film industry. Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act was introduced in 1981 to encourage a broader base of private investment for Australian films. Whilst 10BA has been important in attracting private investment into the industry, there are flaws with the system. A number of films were never released, while others appear to have inflated budgets.As part of his wide-ranging review of Commonwealth assistance to the film industry, Mr David Gonski recommended that the current 10BA and 10B taxation concessions be replaced by the introduction of a film licensed investment company tax concession. The government consulted widely on the detail of Mr Gonski's proposal. We listened to industry concerns about replacing 10BA and 10B with a completely new and untested mechanism. As a result of these concerns, we decided not to replace 10BA until the FLIC or Film Licence Investment Company scheme had been properly trialled. The government will retain 10B. The FLIC scheme will operate alongside the current 10BA concession.The adaptation of Mr Gonski's FLIC model signals an innovative and exciting new approach to government support to the film industry in Australia. The FLIC scheme provides an opportunity for the Australian film industry and the investment sector to work together in attracting more effective and wide-ranging private investment into the development and production of qualifying Australian films. It is envisaged that the FLIC scheme will be able to tap into a part of the investment market which has shown interest in the past in investing in the film industry. As the film industry matures and develops further, the government believes that sophisticated investors will be attracted to investing in a slate of film and television productions across which their risk can be spread.This bill enables the introduction of the Film Licensed Investment Company pilot scheme. Under the scheme, up to $40 million worth of concessional capital over two financial years will be allowed to be raised for investment into qualifying Australian film and television product. A film licensed investment company will be a commercially driven company that will invest in a slate of eligible film and television product. Companies will be selected through a competitive application process. Shareholders will be eligible for an up-front tax deduction of 100 per cent on their investment into the company.While the licence period for raising concessional capital will apply over two financial years, the FLIC will have up to four years to invest the capital and up to five years to complete production. The FLIC will be able to start raising non-concessional capital at the end of the two-year licence period. This represents a major commitment of Commonwealth funding to the film industry. The cost to government is estimated to be up to $20 million over the two-year pilot period. The FLIC scheme will deliver support to the industry that is transparent and accountable, and afford investors an alternative avenue for investment in film. This introduces a level of contestability between current funding sources, through the provision of an alternative source of funds from that currently available from the Film Finance Corporation, and that which can be raised under division 10BA.The FLIC scheme will support and promote the ongoing development of the Australian film industry by facilitating the establishment of a new Australian owned and controlled company that will raise capital primarily from Australian investors for investment in qualifying Australian film.The FLIC does not replace any existing funding for the industry, rather it will complement those programs. The government recognises the vulnerability of the industry, especially for some of the most culturally sensitive genres, and the need for certainty for investors and producers alike. Forward funding for the Australian Film Commission and the Australian Film Finance Corporation was confirmed in the 1997-98 budget, and the continuation of film agencies was confirmed in the government's response to Mr Gonski's report in November 1997. I commend the bill to the House and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills95r62995Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.9513:10:0095McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998 is a companion to the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 .The bill authorises a deduction for money paid during the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 income years to subscribe for shares in a Film Licensed Investment Company (FLIC). The deduction is not allowable until the shares have been fully paid and issued to the shareholder.The legislative package comprising the two bills is intended as a pilot measure, to provide assistance to the Australian film production industry in a way that complements the existing tax concession in division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. FLIC shareholders will be able to effectively spread their investment across a range of films, whereas division 10BA applies to investments in individual films. Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum which I will now table. I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills96r63196Bill presented by Mr Truss, and read a first time.9613:12:0096Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 contains substantial measures which form part of the major reform package to the Child Support Scheme announced by the government on 30 September 1997.The package addresses some of the concerns raised by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Issues and underscores the fundamental principle that parents are primarily responsible for the financial support of their children. The government, through these measures, will not intrude unnecessarily into people's lives. It provides a safety net to ensure children are adequately supported and the community does not carry an undue burden.Parents' capacity to provide financial supportThe administrative formula will be modified by increasing the liable parent's exempted income, including an allowance for a shared-care child and reducing a carer's disregarded income. It also increases a parent's taxable income by adding back rental property losses and including exempt foreign employment income. Child support payable by a parent with a subsequent family will reduce the income used in calculating family allowance entitlement.The bill introduces a minimum child support liability of $260, including provision to withhold from income support payments. It also provides for a more accurate assessment through using the most current taxable income, thereby eliminating the requirement to apply an inflation factor. In addition, the date by which a person may lodge an estimate of income is extended to 31 July and the Registrar will be able to reject an estimate where it does not accurately reflect the person's income.Assessments are to be modified to take into account certain kinds of parents' agreements as to care arrangements, both factual and lawful daily care of a child and a stepchild where a liable parent has a legal duty to maintain the stepchild.The bill reduces the complexity of the departure from assessment process, clarifying the rights of parents to exchange information and the circumstances under which hearings will be granted. The Registrar will be able to initiate a departure when satisfied that a parent's financial circumstances are not accurately reflected in their child support assessment.Parents' rights and responsibilitiesThe bill will provide for the following rights:. either parent may apply for an administrative assessment of child support. the Registrar may suspend disbursement of child support where the Family Court has been asked to make a decision. parents may choose to privately pay and collect child support by agreement at any time and the Registrar may require parents to move to private collection where satisfied that regular payments are likely to continue. a parent may elect to end their administrative assessment where the Secretary to the Department of Social Security has granted an exemption. a child support assessment or agreement may continue until the end of the school year if a child turning 18 is a full-time student. information shown on an assessment notice in relation to children of a liable parent will be limited. parents may object to all decisions of the Registrar made in relation to administrative assessments. greater onus on parents to notify changes in circumstances.Flexible and streamlined administrationThe bill contains improvements to streamline administration of the scheme and provides greater flexibility to meet parents' particular circumstances. These improvements include:. removing retrospectivity in relation to the commencement of a liability. enhancing payment options for liable parents. providing flexibility in how information is provided. allowing the Registrar to offset debts between parents.Non-agency paymentsArrangements for direct (non-agency) payments in lieu of a child support liability have been changed in order to make them more flexible and allow payers more choice in the form in which child support is paid by them, while protecting payees and meeting the basic needs for children.The important reforms in this bill will represent the second stage of the govern ment's response to the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues. Other changes were introduced in 1997. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Bills97r62497Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.9713:16:0097Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 is being reintroduced without amendment to the bill which was debated and passed by the House of Representatives on 1 July 1998.The Commonwealth provides four types of payments to the states and territories: financial assistance grants, competition payments, revenue replacement payments and specific purpose payments.The bill appropriates funding for financial assistance grants, competition payments and revenue replacement payments. The states and territories are able to use this untied funding according to their own budgetary priorities. The bill puts in place arrangements that will fulfil the terms of the Commonwealth's offer of general revenue assistance to the states and territories at the 1998 Premiers Conference.The bill will amend the States Grants (General Purposes) Act 1994. The existing act covers the provision of financial assistance for 1997-98, with interim arrangements for the continuation of payments for a maximum of six months. The bill extends for a further 12 months the provisions of the act relating to the payment of financial assistance grants and state and territory entitlements to payments under the safety net arrangements.The general revenue assistance to be appropriated by this bill is about $17.1 billion, or around 12 per cent of estimated Commonwealth outlays in 1998-99. Accordingly, these payments constitute a significant element of the Commonwealth budget and have an important bearing on the spending and borrowing of the public sector as a whole. The states and territories are able to allocate the funds provided by the Commonwealth under this act according to their own budgetary priorities.In addition, revenue replacement payments to the states under the safety net arrangements are estimated to be $6.5 billion in 1998-99. The safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth.I turn now to the elements of the bill which give effect to the Commonwealth's funding commitments to the states and territories. The states and territories will be provided with real per capita growth in financial assistance grants in 1998-99. Amendments to the act are consistent with the per capita element of the real per capita guarantee being conditional on states meeting the terms of the agreement to implement the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms. In addition to real per capita growth in financial assistance grants, the agreement also provides for up to $217.2 million in competition payments to the states and territories in 1998-99.The Commonwealth has accepted the recommendations of the National Competition Council that all states except New South Wales receive their full allocation of competition payments. New South Wales may incur a deduction of $10 million from its competition payments if it fails to reform its domestic rice marketing arrangements. The Commonwealth has indicated it will delay a decision on this matter until early next year.The major part of the assistance provided under this bill is the payment to each state and territory of a share of the pool of financial assistance grants which is estimated to be about $16.9 billion this year. The distribution of financial assistance grants will be in accordance with equalisation per capita relativities recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its 1998 Update Report. The bill updates the per capita relativities accordingly and makes appropriate amendments to the definition in the act of the amount of unquarantined health funding to be used for calculating the combined pool of financial assistance grants and health care grants. The Australian Capital Territory will also receive $25 million from the Commonwealth in 1998-99 in the form of transitional allowances and special fiscal needs. This payment is outside the scope of this bill and was included in the appropriation bills for the 1998-99 budget.The payment of financial assistance grants to the states and territories will be conditional upon the states and territories meeting their commitment to make fiscal contribution payments of $313.4 million in 1998-99. This represents a 50 per cent reduction from the total fiscal contribution of the states and territories in the previous year. State fiscal contributions will cease after 1998-99. The states and territories agreed at the 1996 Premiers Conference to make the fiscal contributions in recognition of the deficit reduction task required to stabilise the national economy.The Commonwealth's fiscal consolidation effort remains a central priority, particularly in light of the recent economic instability in the Asian region. The Commonwealth will continue to provide states and territories with maximum flexibility concerning the method of payment of the state fiscal contributions. A state's share can be paid by way of deductions from general revenue assistance, direct payments to the Commonwealth or a reduction in funding provided under a specific purpose grant. Provisions have been included in the bill to allow for states' 1998-99 fiscal contributions to be deducted from general revenue assistance.Finally, I turn to the elements of the bill which relate to the safety net arrangements. The safety net measures introduced by the Commonwealth protect state and territory revenues following the High Court decision of 5 August 1997 on state business franchise fees. The Commonwealth is using its tax powers to collect the revenue that the states and territories previously collected by way of business franchise fees on petroleum products, tobacco and alcoholic beverages. The states and territories acknowledge that this represents a state tax imposed and collected by the Commonwealth at their unanimous request and on their behalf.The proposed amendments provide authority for the Commonwealth to pay the states and territories the revenue it collects under the safety net arrangements this year. These payments are estimated to be $6.5 billion in 1998-99. The amendments also include provisions which return to the states and territories any tax revenues the Commonwealth might receive under the Franchise Fees Windfall Tax (Collection) Act 1997. This will ensure that state and territory finances are protected from claims for refunds, on grounds of constitutional invalidity, of past payments of business franchise fees.As I noted earlier, the safety net arrangements are revenue neutral for the Commonwealth. Revenue replacement payments will simply return to the states and territories amounts raised by the Commonwealth on their behalf, after allowing for our administrative costs. This bill does not address arrangements for the provision of funding to the states and territories in 1999-2000. These arrangements will be discussed in a congenial atmosphere, I expect, with the states and territories at the 1999 Premiers Conference, which is currently expected to be held on 9 April next year. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned.Governor-General's Speech9999Debate resumed.13:27:0099Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Speaker on his well deserved appointment to high office, and I would be grateful if you would convey my congratulations to him. I endorse all the words of support and encouragement that have been spoken in this House and I know he will mark the historic office of Speaker with his personal qualities of integrity, principle and commitment.Today is 11 November and it is a very special day for all Australians. It is a profoundly moving occasion for me to be here in this parliament of our nation on this day, 11 November 1998, to reply to the Governor-General. This is the day of remembrance, a day of so many memories. The freedoms which we have taken for granted during ordinary days of the year appear more precious to us here today, for it is fitting that the price paid for our freedom, for our liberty and for our democratic government should be remembered and raised in this place. Is there any other place in our nation which could better reflect our shining liberty and proud fraternity? Is there any other place where we could better remember the terrible cost?Last Sunday my husband Bob and I attended a moving remembrance memorial service of the Southern Metropolitan District Council of RSL subbranches which was arranged by the honourable secretary, Mike Paris. Hosted by the Miranda RSL subbranch, the commemoration address was given by Mr Jack Hawtin, who had volunteered for the Navy in World War II when he was only a young 17-year-old. Jack sailed on the assault ship HMAS Kanimbla and by the time the war was over he was a veteran of seven invasions. Like many others present, I was very impressed with Jack's commemoration address and, with his kind permission, I repeat it here in this place:Australia has achieved so much since becoming a nation in 1901 and has suffered enormous casualties in fighting for our country and helping to defend other nations from being over-run by invading armies.In World War I our glorious youth answered the call to defend King and Empire. With a population of under four million, 331,000 Australians served overseas, with two thirds becoming casualties. In the Gallipoli campaign we left behind 7594 dead and 19,500 were wounded.Will we ever forget place names like Anzac Cove, Sari Bair, Shrapnel Gully and Lone Pine.Today we pause to remember.In France and Belgium, our five divisions were used in many famous battles such as Fromelles, Amiens, Mouquet Farm, Pozieres, Ypres, Passchendaele, Villers-Bretonneux and the Hindenburg Line. They left behind 34,000 identified graves and 20,000 unidentified graves. British General Sir Ian Hamilton is quoted as saying in 1918—"Before the War, who had ever heard of the ANZACs? Hereafter, who will ever forget?"The AIF had the greatest number of casualties per man on the field of all the Allied Armies, 64.98 %They travelled the furthest, were away the longest, they were the only volunteer force, they came from a newer land and were a younger race than any who entered that awful arena.Forty percent of all Australians aged between eighteen and forty five had enlisted in the AIF.Today, we pause to remember.Let us recall with pride that more than 500,000 people served overseas in our armed forces in World War II out of a population of seven million. Thirty thousand service people did not return. Most were buried in foreign fields and our naval dead lie beneath the seven seas.Prime Minister John Curtin in 1944 said `I hope that for generations to come, people will honour the deeds of these men and women and remember that freedom is a condition that has to be fought and paid for and that we kept our freedom at huge cost.'Today, we pause to remember.Australia sent four divisions of the AIF overseas during the early years of World War II. They served with great distinction in the Middle East and Malaya. They followed in the footsteps of their fathers, completing their training in Egypt and participating in many campaigns. Famous names come to mind, such as Bardia, Tobruk, Greece, Crete and El Alamein.When Japan entered the war, our Army was quickly expanded and by 1944, twelve divisions were either active or in training and were heavily engaged along with the US Army divisions in stopping and defeating the enemy in Papua New Guinea and many other Pacific Islands. Names such as Malaya, Milne Bay, Kokoda, Buna, Sattleburg, Wewak and Borneo will forever live in Australian history.Today, we pause to remember.Our Glorious Royal Australian Air Force was in the thick of things right from the beginning with squadrons operating in Britain, the Middle East and later in Italy. RAAF fighter and bomber squadrons worked closely with our troops in many engagements in Middle East campaigns. In the Pacific our fighter squadrons bravely defended our forward bases and our bombers and transports were making names for themselves, participating in every action, working closely with our Army and Navy. Famous names come to mind like the Battle of Britain, the Western Desert, Darwin, the Bismarck Sea and Milne Bay to name but a few.Today, we pause to remember.Our Navy took the fight to the enemy from day one. Our cruisers and destroyers served with great distinction in the Middle East suffering heavy losses in ships and personnel.At one stage in the Pacific, our cruiser force of six ships was reduced to one, with three being sunk and two suffering battle damage. Australians will never forget the loss of the HMAS Sydney and the total loss of her ship's company of 645 men, the greatest loss of any one unit of any service in World War II.Naval battle honours dearly achieved, included those in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, the Java Sea, Guadalcanal and the Leyte Gulf.Today, we pause to remember.Many people called the Korean War `The Forgotten War' but ask any veteran who fought there and he will tell you how Australian soldiers fought against an awesome enemy and how the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment was awarded a US Presidential Citation for stopping a vastly superior enemy force at the Battle of Kapiong.He also well remembers place names like Pakchon, the Hook, Hill 355, Little Gibraltar, Maryang San and the Han River. Our RAAF squadrons were first into the battle flying over 19,000 sorties in total.Five of our Navy ships took part in the Yellow Sea gun line and several of our ships took casualties from enemy gunfire while bombarding coastal artillery. Our aircraft carrier HMAS Sydney will be remembered for her airstrikes, losing nine of her aircraft and their crews to ground fire.Today, we pause to remember.The professionalism of Australian troops in Vietnam was noticed by other forces. Our casualties were an indication of many front line actions. Vietnam veterans were exposed to a new horror—Agent Orange, and many are still suffering today.Our Vietnam veterans will remember place names such as Long Phuoc, Long Tan, Hao Long and Bribie Operation to mention a few.Our Air Force and our Navy played their part.So, on this Remembrance Sunday—the 80th Anniversary—we give thanks to God for giving us the privilege to hold this service without fear of persecution. We acknowledge the part played by thousands of Australian Service People in all wars since Federation and we pay homage to over 100,000 men and women who paid the supreme sacrifice and gave their lives so that we can live in freedom in this beautiful Australia. Listening to Jack Hawtin mention the long list of the now familiar foreign placenames, where successive generations of young Australians lay forever in those faraway fields, brought many memories back to all of us as we stood gathered under a threatening sky last Sunday.On a personal level, my grandfather Donald Peter Dempsey was one of the many young volunteers in the first Great War. He came from Newcastle and was with the 18th Battalion. He died in the mud in Belgium in 1918. My mother was nearly three at the time and, like so many Australian children after all the wars, grew up without the love and protection of her father.Five of my great-uncles volunteered in that war. Of the two who did come home, my treasured great-uncle William Edward Jones returned full of shrapnel and his younger brother John Jones, regimental number 2370, had the Military Medal in his kitbag. Great-uncle Johnny had been a stretcher-bearer. Neither of my great-uncles ever spoke of the war, but neither of them ever married, nor had families of their own: that was a hidden cost of shattered lives. Today, we pause to remember.As a living connection with this terrible war, there is an old soldier in my electorate of Hughes by the name of Mick Hollingsworth, who was a mounted trooper with the 8th and the 12th Light Horse. He was at the charge of Beersheba. He was 100 years old last year. I understand he is in Canberra today for the memorial service.From memories of World War II, I want to especially mention here one very special constituent by the name of Wallace Edmund Southwick, regimental number NX54413. Wally served with the 2nd 20th Battalion and the 2nd 10th Army General Hospital. I remember the first time I saw him. He was sitting in my waiting area in the electorate office. I noticed even then there was something very special about him; a certain dignity. When we spoke, he reminded me that the Prime Minister was that very day visiting Hellfire Pass. He spoke very quietly and with great purpose as he told me his story. Somehow he had survived Cholera Hill and Hellfire Pass. His health had never been good since and he had come to tell me that he was proud that the Prime Minister was there and that Hellfire Pass was to be made a memorial to his mates. He wanted me to know. He would have loved to have been there with the Prime Minister, but he had no complaint about the fact that he was not one of the old diggers chosen to go. He was pleased that some could go back and hopefully lay some old ghosts. He just wanted me to know that he had been there. I found his visit profoundly moving. He had a certain noble presence, a sense of great humanity and an awesome humility. Others also see something special in Wally Southwick and all his mates down at the Heathcote Services Club, especially mates like Paul Baker and Wayne Davies and Mike Paris, are very proud that they know him.One other old digger from World War II, Jim Hunt, regimental number NX20760, is from Moorebank in my electorate. Jim was only 18 when he signed up in 1940 and he was with the 9th Division, 2nd 17th Battalion and was at Tobruk, El Alamein in the Middle East and later in New Guinea. He remembers that when he and his young mates were waiting for the fighting to start in this foreign place called Tobruk—and this does seem surprisingly human in times like this—he and his mates worried if they could live up to the legends of the ANZACs. `We really worried if we would be good enough,' he said. Yet we all know today that these youngsters ended up making a legend of their own and became known as the Rats of Tobruk.Even the so-called forgotten war, the Korean War, brings home memories in my electorate of Hughes. The renowned 3rd Royal Australian Regiment is based in the Holsworthy defence area located in my electorate and it was the men of the 3 RAR who fought in one of the most significant victories of the Korean War.I would like to remind this House of the Battle of Maryang San, which occurred in October 1951 and which our official war historian, Professor Robert O'Neill, described as `one of the most impressive victories ever achieved by any Australian battalion, probably the greatest single feat of the Australian Army during the Korean War'. This battle was described by Lieutenant-General Coates when he wrote:The scale of manoeuvre of 3 RAR during the action packed six days of the battle, by night, in fog, across rugged terrain and for much of the time under artillery and mortar fire, can only challenge contemporary Australian infantrymen to strive for similar levels of excellence. The display of endurance, courage and aggression during the battle are timeless benchmarks for offensive operations.The officer in command during the offensive was General Sir Frances Hassett. He has said that, `Maryang San was fought with great skill and gallantry and that, although it was our biggest battalion battle since World War II, it has been the least publicised. The battle comprised a series of brilliant company and platoon attacks in which the 3 RAR secured the approaches, captured Maryan Sang and then mounted the defence against immediate counterattack by the Chinese.' During this battle, the men of the valorous Third Royal Australian Regiment lost 120 of their mates at Maryang San. Today, we pause to remember them.Like so many other members here today, I have many veterans of Vietnam in my electorate. Many of them still struggle with the memories of that terrible war and the realities of returning to live in the land of freedom where few have shared the terrors. Their welcome home eventually came, but it came many years too late for some. As young men, they answered the call of their country, as did their fathers and their grandfathers before them. They were not welcomed home as they were promised by the ANZAC tradition. It is time we remembered their sacrifice because many of them are still privately suffering.We should never forget that our veterans in Vietnam were also the victims of this war. They deserve our affection and our respect. I have met many Vietnam veterans working in many of our RSL sub-branches and many community organisations. Many are still committed to helping their mates. They are men like Paul Baker, regimental No. 39039, and Mike Paris, regimental No. 217158, from the Heathcote Services Club, who saw service at Nui Dat and Vung Tau. Ray Wyse, regimental No. 2784683, of Miranda who saw service at Vung Tao and Saigon and his mate Ron Shaw, regimental No. 2785005, who was also at the Battle of Long Binh and Nui Dat. Today we pause to remember.On this 80th anniversary of Remembrance Day we join Jack Hawtin and all at the Miranda RSL sub-branch remembrance service and give thanks to God for giving us the privilege to hold this parliament in freedom and liberty. We salute the many thousands of Australian servicemen and servicewomen who in all the wars since Federation have paid the supreme sacrifice and who have given their lives so that we can live in freedom in our Great South Land, this Australia.I would like to close with Jack Hawtin's reminder of an old, old song. Today, when we look at our Australian flag, we should pause and we should remember:its only an old piece of buntingits only an old coloured ragbut many have died for its honourand shed their life's blood for our flag(Time expired)13:41:00102Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—I echo the fine words there of the member for Hughes. Today is a very important day in our history as we do remember Remembrance Day, the 11th of the 11th. As an ex-military person, I have often reflected upon what it must have been like to actually be in the two-way rifle range. It is not something that I ever wished to participate in, although I was willing and trained, and trained others, to fulfil that role.It has been since the Boer War in 1899 that Australians have heroically answered the call to war, conflict and, more recently, to the unrest all over the world, in the form of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. It is the democracies of the freedom of speech, the freedom of thought and the choice of political and religious affiliations that we all take for granted as Australians, as being part of our great Australian quality of life—and they are due to nothing less than the enormous sacrifices of generations before us.Like the member for Hughes, I have many members of my electorate who have given part of their life, and quite often have given their health, to ensure that I am able to stand here today, and that all of us are able to do so with the freedoms that we enjoy. They did that willingly; they did that well. It would be remiss of me not to congratulate them and thank them on this occasion for the efforts that they have put in, some of them many years ago.I would like to congratulate two successive ministers for veterans' affairs, Con Sciacca and the current minister, Bruce Scott—Con for his work with the Australia Remembers campaign in 1995 and the current minister for the `Their Service—Our Heritage' initiative. Both of these initiatives, in years to come, will become symbols of what Australians think of and remember when they consider the sacrifices of so many men and women in the service of this great nation.There is, however, one group of service personnel who really have not been recognised fully and yet have given so much to this nation, and that is the nurses. Very few people in this House are probably aware that, to this day, there is no permanent memorial here in Canberra to the nurses. Certainly they are remembered in many ways, but there is no specific, unique one for them. This government has contributed $100,000 towards a $2 million fund to ensure that that is rectified next year, which is the centenary year of nurses' service to this nation.I would like to relay a couple of stories about the nurses, because you must think about what it must have been like—whether you were on the Somme or in the deserts of Africa or in jungles of New Guinea—to have been wounded somehow, to have woken up and to have looked up from clean sheets, perhaps for the first time in several months, to see the glowing face of an Australian nurse looking down upon you. Many of them must have wondered whether they had died and gone to heaven! At the weekend, at a fundraising activity for this particular charity, I was with a nursing colonel who had served as far back as the Korean War. She relayed the story of one soldier in the Vietnam War who, having been out to it for several days, came around and looked up at the nurse. They thought he might have lost his mind, but when he asked for a kiss they were reassured that he was quite normal. That was an interesting anecdote that she offered.The fact is that Australian nurses first served overseas in the Boer War—and they were not paid. They in fact paid their own way to go and serve Australia. It must sound rather remarkable to many of us today to think that someone was so keen to serve their nation and to look after the menfolk that were going off to fight in that far-off land that they actually paid their own passage. In fact, one nurse from Queensland who served, and several from Tasmania, not only paid their own passage but the sum total of the nursing equipment they had was what they brought with them. So that is where the great nursing tradition commenced for Australian services. I am sure it will live on for many years to come.On this occasion I would also like to sincerely thank the many people of the Longman electorate who re-elected me on 3 October and gave me their vote of confidence to come back here and speak on their behalf. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of all my supporters, my helpers and volunteers who put in an enormous effort during and prior to the election campaign. As you are all no doubt aware, without these hardworking people none of us would hold our seats in this House.I would particularly like to mention my wife, Sue, and my four dedicated staff—Lisa, Kylie, Andrea and Helen. These five women together often go way beyond the call of duty to ensure that the Longman electors are served in the most professional and dedicated manner possible. For this, I thank them on my own behalf and also on behalf of those many people that they have helped over the last 2½ years.This second term of the Howard government is going to see many and varied major issues come before the Australian public. Many of them we are already aware of: things like the constitutional referendum next year; the centenary of Federation; of course, the tax reform package; and our celebration of our Olympians in the Sydney 2000 Olympics. These are but a few of the major issues which will dominate the headlines in the next 2½ years. I am sure they will also dominate many a barbecue and family chat, as some of our new members have spoken about this morning, as families do at Sunday dinner in Australia—some families still do—discuss political issues. These will be some of those issues which will be uppermost in their mind.As the local member for Longman I will continue to focus not only on these issues of national significance but also on those many smaller and less significant items—less significant, perhaps, in the wider community's eyes or in the eyes of the media, but very, very important to the local people: things like roads, education facilities, the life that we want our children to have, the needs of our veterans and our aged care facilities and, of course, local, job creating activities. I would like to spend a few minutes discussing some of these and the role that I hope to play in ensuring that Longman, in the next 2½ to three years, is a better place than it currently is.The first of these is a project which actually combines the military and local tourism. Most of you will not aware that HMAS Flinders is one of the many pieces of military equipment currently up for world-wide tender. It has been an initiative of the Bribie Island Tourism Authority, which have put in a tender—and I might add they are not asking to pay any money for this; they would like to see the government gift it to them—so that they could use HMAS Flinders as a tourist attraction on beautiful Bribie Island.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would know that the first tourist to Bribie Island was Captain Flinders. He goes back some way, but he landed there and we will be commemorating that event next year. To have a ship which honours his name being able to be a permanent tourist attraction in the form of a museum and also an outlet for our many naval cadets and other organisations on the island would certainly be a boost directly to jobs—and they estimate seven or eight jobs directly—but also a boost to our economy, which is a closed economy on Bribie Island, as you can imagine. Certainly we are connected to the mainland via a bridge, but the fact is that anything we can do to attract more people onto the island and boost its economy is going to be a plus. I commend this project and I commend those people who have worked diligently towards ensuring that it becomes a reality. I thank the new Minister for Defence, Minister John Moore, who will be visiting Bribie Island in December to discuss this project with these people.A second project in the north of my electorate is the multipurpose building at Maleny High School. Maleny is another beautiful part of my electorate and is located in the hinterland behind the Sunshine Coast. Here is an area with some 600 students that has no real facility for numerous groups to conduct their activities. We have a young population, a population that needs to have activities to keep them busy. It will be through the community working with the state, and I hope with the federal government, which will bring this project to fruition.However, I was concerned at a meeting the other night to learn that the state Labor government in Queensland had added a caveat to giving any money to this project. It said, `Yes, we are willing to give you $200,000 but only if you get no money out of the federal government.' As the federal representative, that seemed to be a great way out for me. I could say, `We would love to give you money but all we would be doing would be undermining your position.' I hope that the Queensland state government would look again at this position and see the community, state, local and federal governments working together to achieve something useful for the people of Maleny.I was also very pleased, during the election campaign, to welcome the Prime Minister's initiative of $25 million to upgrade the Bruce Highway. For those who do not know, the Bruce Highway leads out from Brisbane towards Cairns. It is the first 40 kilometres that I am most interested in because that is the area that takes to work in Brisbane each day the great work force of Caboolture, Bribie Island, Narangba and Burpengary.We are very much dormitory suburbs. People live in this beautiful part of this world but they move into the city to work. However, in doing that the road becomes clogged, allowing for—quite often—nasty accidents, great delays and extra pressures in people's lives. I will work hard to ensure that the $25 million that the Prime Minister committed during the election campaign is utilised quickly and effectively to upgrade these roads.A fourth project is one that I have been working on with the local community for some time: funding for Care Independent Living on Bribie Island. There are anomalies, unfortunately, in our system where we have a state and federal government agreement for disabilities which prevents the federal government from actually delivering disability services directly into any state without the say-so of the state government. Whilst that would seem a reasonable thing, it has meant that some people have fallen through the cracks.This particular organisation, which is headed by some very dedicated individuals, is trying to provide a home and a quality of life for people with acquired brain injuries. These are not old people. They are young people who through illness or injury find themselves in a position that we would all hope not to find ourselves in at any time in life. They do not deserve to be put into an aged care facility surrounded by, perhaps, geriatrics. What they are more interested in, and what they need to have, is real care and a place in which they can be with people of their own age—young people. It is the carers of these people whose lives are also impacted upon dramatically. We need to take that into account when we look at what we can do to support places like the Care Independent Living establishment on Bribie Island.The final local issue I would like to discuss briefly is the Caboolture War Planes Museum. The warbirds museum, as it is known, is another major tourist attraction gaining momentum in this region. Another dedicated group of individuals has put together aircraft which were flying during World War II. This is a flying monument; these are not static aircraft and displays. I have had the privilege—if you would like to call it that—of being flown in a Wirraway, an Australian produced aircraft from World War II. Unfortunately, when we got upstairs they decided it was not good enough to just do clear air; we had to do a bit of aerobatics. I got to see my electorate from a whole new perspective. It was very challenging!These people are now looking at increasing their fleet with a Beaufort bomber. They have found an old fuselage at Gove which they would like to see brought down and rebuilt to flying status. If we can achieve that we will be doing two things: we will be looking towards Australia's history and our heritage, and we will be creating more jobs and greater opportunities for the people of this district through this wonderful local initiative, the warbirds museum.These are but a few of the practical local issues which will improve the quality of life of the people of Longman, and they have kindly re-elected me to assist them.Like so many families, my wife and I often discuss what sort of a future we as a nation are creating for our children. I cannot say that I am always happy with what I see before us. We see constant reminders of the damage of drugs. We see so many other issues impacting on our children. I wonder about the values that are espoused by many and where we will be in the years to come. I am sure that many other families in my district feel exactly the same way. There are some issues in society that we can have an impact on and I intend to do my best, as the elected representative, to do something about them over the next three years.I have recently taken up the Internet, as I believe so many hundreds of thousands of Australians are doing, and in doing so I recognise that we have a very exciting educational tool which is great for sharing ideas right around the world and it opens up many opportunities. But having young children I realise that the Internet also opens up some other less savoury aspects of this medium.My children are fans of the Australian Rugby League. My son has the poor taste to think Canberra, the Raiders, is a good side, but I and the rest of the family support the Brisbane Broncos. They were in Parliament House looking up the Internet sites of the various sides. My daughter, who likes to dance, decided she would like to look up `cheerleaders'. But something as innocent as `cheerleaders' brings up pornography. My daughter sang out to me in my Parliament House room, `Dad, come and have a look at this.'Dad came and had a look at this but he was horrified by what was there. Without going into the gory details, the fact that a child of seven or eight years of age, who is being supervised but who does not have a parent looking over their shoulder, can stumble upon material such as that without the need for any verification of age or anything else is simply not good enough. I do not have a good enough grasp of information technology to know how we overcome it, but I do know that as a society we must do all we can to protect young people from such material.In the next couple of moments, before we move into our first question time for this parliament, I would like to touch on another serious issue for our young people, and that is drugs. I recently saw a program on the ABC which was put together by a woman who had actually been a drug addict at 16. She came from my district at Nambour, a town about as far removed from Kings Cross as you can get. Somehow she found her way to Kings Cross and in doing so became addicted to heroin for many years.Fortunately, she was taken out of that environment by a loving man who restored her to health and happiness, and she wanted to do this program for another individual. She returned to the Cross with her husband to try and rescue another young person. I guess for those do-gooders like me who feel that this is something that is easily achieved, it opened my eyes to just what a difficult task it is. They found that the person found their way back into this environment in a very short period of time.Drugs are a menace to society, but they are not going to be overcome simply by draconian laws. Drugs are something that will be overcome when communities decide that enough is enough and when we, together, bury this menace through education. We have to inform our children of the facts of life at an early age and reinforce them constantly.I was privileged to meet with the school captains throughout my district earlier in the year. The one point they wanted to make above all else was that drugs were something that they were very concerned about, and that they wanted to be better educated about them. I would hope that this place would have a bipartisan approach to ensuring that the information they desire and need so that they can make the right choices in their life is provided.I would like to make one last point. I had the privilege last year of meeting the Hon. Elizabeth Wong from the Hong Kong Legislative Assembly. She gave me her business card and on the back of it was written, `My boss is the Hong Kong people, my job is to serve them.' If I can serve the people of Longman and remember that they are my boss I will have done a good job in the next three years, and I look forward to doing just that.Miscellaneous106106Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It being 2.00 p.m., there are one or two observations I wish to make as the Speaker, prior to calling for questions without notice. First, I would like to say that, clearly, the House would fall into all sorts of disorder if it were not for the custom, well entrenched in standing orders, of members rising in their place, seeking the call and being recognised before they proceed to address the chamber. It is, of course, equally appropriate that that standing order should apply in the same way to the frontbench as it applies to the backbench.There has been a not surprising tendency for frontbenchers to come to the dispatch box to seek the call. I think it is entirely appropriate that frontbenchers should rise in their place and seek the call. In fact, in answer to questions, frontbenchers should await the call before proceeding to the dispatch box. I observe, in a totally non-partisan way, that it was a habit which I noticed the former mem ber for Bass had fallen into which did give a certain sense of order, and I think it ought to apply in future in the chamber. So I would expect frontbench members to rise in their place and, after being recognised, proceed to the dispatch box.Secondly, consistent with the rulings given by the overwhelming majority of Speakers who have been in the chamber since I came here in 1983, I do not intend to allow supplementary questions as a matter of habit.I also indicate to the chamber that the Deputy Speaker and I have conferred this morning and deliberately chose—for reasons that I know all will endorse—not to interrupt the very good first speeches given by a number of members. We chose not to interrupt them on occasions when the enthusiasm of their colleagues meant that their colleagues burst into applause.I was in the chair—if I may illustrate this point—when the member for Gellibrand gave an excellent speech and her colleagues managed to resist the temptation to burst into applause. There is, of course, nothing wrong with applause. The difficulty is that it then encourages the galleries to behave in what is an unruly manner by also bursting into applause.Can I remind members that it is always appropriate to endorse the sentiments of a colleague on either side of the House by a quiet, `Hear, hear,' but that the tendency to burst into applause does make it more difficult for whoever is in the chair to exercise the sort of control that is expected of the gallery. After all, only those who are on the floor of the House should be here participating in the House.I do not want to bring any note of discord, but I also remind members that it is my intention as the Speaker to warn people but not to warn them repetitiously.Ministerial Arrangements107107Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be absent from question time today and tomorrow. The minister is in Belgium participating in ceremonies to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War I and later in Turkey to inspect commemorative sites at Gallipoli. The Minister for Defence will act on his behalf and answer questions.Questions Without Notice107107107Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My first question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that in the year in which the GST is introduced pensioners will already be entitled to an increase of around $340 a year to keep the pension at 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings? Is the Prime Minister aware that these moneys were already in the budget before the government released its tax package? Isn't it true that, of the $400 pension increase which the government says will be provided as GST compensation, only $60 of it is actually extra money for pensioners, or $1.15 a week?107Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can confirm what was asserted in the tax plan—that is, that, consequent upon the introduction of the goods and services tax and the compensation arrangements proposed by the government, those in receipt of the old age pension and other benefits analogous thereto will always be 1½ per cent in real terms ahead of the CPI impact of the GST.107107Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity as a fellow South Australian to congratulate you on your election to your new position. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the recent performance of the Australian economy, particularly in light of the difficult international economic environment?107Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I preface my answer by congratulating the member for Makin on her return to this House. One of the reasons why the member for Makin performed so well in the last election campaign was the very strong state of the Australian economy. One of the proudest boasts of my government is how well the Australian economy has performed, despite difficult international economic cir cumstances. That is not a partisan political boast. It is in fact verified by independent authority. Recently, the Treasury, in its Economic Roundup , said:The current approach to macro-economic policy and the impact of micro-economic reform have strengthened the stabilisation mechanisms in the Australian economy, making it more resilient to disturbances such as the economic and financial crisis in Asia.Even more so, the Reserve Bank, in its semi-annual statement on monetary policy, had this to say:The Australian economy has weathered the first year and a half of a very difficult international environment exceptionally well and the settings of macro-economic policy have made an important contribution to the favourable outcome.That is bankspeak for saying that the government has done a tremendous job in getting the budget back into order. If we had not taken those decisions, we would not have had the lower interest rates. We would not have been able to look the rest of the world in the eye and say that we have got an outstanding economic performance in very difficult international economic circumstances.It is further emphasised by some preliminary figures released by the ABS this morning which showed that the economy grew by a revised 4.4 per cent in 1997-98, up from the four per cent rate previously reported. In other words, a more accurate measure showed that it has gone up by 4.4 per cent. This has all happened despite the 2½ years of the Labor Party talking down the Australian economy.If there is one thing that provides tragic faces opposite, it is good news about the Australian economy. If there is one thing they do not like, it is interest rates going down, inflation going down, the budget being back in surplus and the Australian economy performing very strongly by world standards. I want to thank the Australian people for the contribution that they have made to the fact that this country, to its great credit and to its great pride, has been able to weather the Asian economic storm far better than many expected, in a way that rebounds greatly to the credit of the Australian people and, may I say, to the government that I am proud to lead. 108108Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Treasurer, is it not a fact that, according to the modelling of your own tax package, a dual income family earning $30,000 or more, with one child, pays only 30c a week extra GST than the same family would without children? Treasurer, is 30c a week enough to cover the extra GST costs for children of food, clothes, books, school uniforms, sport, entertainment, travel and hair cuts? Is it not true that you have grossly understated the GST impact on Australian families?108Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I think even the member for Hotham should know, the GST has been modelled, on a CPI basis, at 1.9 per cent. Even on the most generous assumption, which is that every household spends 100 per cent of its income, under the government's tax package, each of those households will be better off. We have seen from the opposition outrageous and false claims to the contrary, no more so than on the day before the election when the Australian Labor Party took out ads in newspapers across this country saying, `Secret government figures show GST will cost you five times more than Howard admits'.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as to relevance: this is a very specific question directed at the government's own public figuring, relating to the estimates of the impact on families under their figuring and asking whether or not that 30c is a correct assessment of a family's needs.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand the question. I would rule that the Treasurer's answer is entirely consistent. Given the time he has spent focusing entirely on the GST, he is entirely in order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said earlier, the Treasury modelling of the impacts of the GST on a CPI basis—the only reliable basis—was 1.9 per cent. The Australian Labor Party, even up until the day before the election, in fabrications put in national newspapers, claimed there was a Treasury analysis showing that the impact would be five times greater. That was completely false.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Oh, Mr Speaker! There is no Treasury—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Wait a moment. The Leader of the Opposition will find that his microphone is not active because I have not, as yet, recognised him. The Leader of the Opposition—I presume on a point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Yes, I am on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are not asking for his hidden Treasury documents. We are asking here about the publicly released figures of the government when it brought down its tax package. The question relates specifically to that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. It strikes me, as the Speaker, that points of order on relevance are rather like asking the cricket umpire for a decision on the light.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—They are occasionally given.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Banks.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—Get out the meter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler. Having been alerted to the state of the light, I now have my eye on it, so I will monitor whether or not the answer is relevant.CT4Mr COSTELLO—No wonder the Leader of the Opposition says he is no longer asking for the documents on the household expenditure survey. No wonder! Before the election he said, in advertisements around the country, which were totally fabricated, that it would come out at five times. What is five times 1.9? It is 9.5 per cent. The advice to this government is and always was that the reliable measure of the price effect of a 10 per cent GST was a consumer price index which was 1.9 per cent, which has been more than adequately compensated for by a four per cent increase in pensions and other measures and which made sure that, contrary to the fabrications of the Australian Labor Party, all quin tiles of taxpayers and income earners would be better off under a better new Australian taxation system.109109Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—I address my question to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer outline to the House recent economic indicators on the current state of the Australian economy? In light of recent economic data, what are the prospects for continued economic growth? What effects are developments in the region likely to have on the Australian economy?109Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Unquestionably, international developments in our region and elsewhere have been very difficult. This has been a very difficult international environment over the last 12 months. As we look around this particular region, we see Japan is in recession, Singapore moved into recession yesterday, Korea is in an IMF program, Thailand is in an IMF program and Indonesia is in an IMF program. I can report to the House that, whilst nearly all of Asia, bar China, is in recession, the Australian economy continues to grow strongly. As the RBA semi-annual statement on monetary policies said:The Australian economy has also weathered the first year and a half of a very difficult international environment exceptionally well. . .The statement says that this was due to good macro economic policy, combined with the success of exporters in finding new markets.On an unadjusted basis—and the Prime Minister has just referred to the adjusted basis—the Australian economy grew by four per cent in 1997-98, faster than the United States, faster than the United Kingdom, faster than France, New Zealand, faster than our OECD major partners and, of course, faster, outside of China, than any economy in the Asian region.Mr Speaker, these kinds of results do not happen by chance. I would like to pay tribute to the Australian exporters who have shown remarkable ingenuity in switching their exports to different markets. It has in part been a result of allowing an adjustment in relation to the exchange rate to help those exporters find those new markets, but it has also been a response of this government which decided to repair the Australian budget, to take a $10.3 billion Beazley deficit and put the Australian budget back into surplus. When we did that, we were fought every single step of the way by the Australian Labor Party. Having created the mess, the Australian Labor Party tried to stop all efforts to fix it again.Today we can report that inflation in Australia is well within the band set by this government with the Reserve Bank. We can report that home loan mortgage interest rates are as low as they have been in Australia for 30 years. The small business indicator overdraft rate is the lowest recorded by the Reserve Bank.Mr Speaker, I also note in passing that the Westpac index of consumer sentiment, which was released at 11 this morning, was headed `Consumer sentiment surges' and reads:The Westpac-Melbourne Institute index of consumer sentiment rose by 6.2 per cent in November. Westpac's General Manager Economics, Bill Evans, commented, `This is undoubtedly a strong result which has probably been supported by a clearly benign interest rate outlook.'ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—They like the election result, too.CT4Mr COSTELLO—And, as the Prime Minister says, no doubt contributed to by the election result as well. Mr Speaker, you do not get that kind of economic management without taking the hard decisions and the tough decisions. This was a government that was prepared to take the big decisions in relation to the Beazley budget deficit of $10.3 billion so as to put the Australian economy back on track, and this is the government which is prepared to take further decisions in the national interest in relation to tax reform to set Australia up for opportunities in the future which it will never get otherwise.110110Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is again addressed to the Treasurer. It refers to his earlier answer to my question. Treasurer, doesn't the Melbourne Institute modelling, using ABS data, show that the cost of the GST would be up to five times higher for families than the government's assumptions would indicate? And isn't it the case that, contrary to your statement this morning, the ALP's election advertisement made no reference whatever to compensation? Treasurer, isn't it you who is misleading the Australian public to cover up the unfairness of your GST? Isn't it the same Melbourne Institute that your tax package quotes approvingly at page 156?110Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Mr Speaker, the member—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Treasurer, the rules that apply to the opposition front bench apply to the government front bench. I call you now.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, the member for Hotham is now trying to defend his advertisement on the grounds that it referred to the Melbourne Institute survey. Is that right?DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is a funny thing. Why would you head it up `Treasury papers show'? It was not the Melbourne Institute, Westpac or anybody else; it was `Treasury papers show'. Why would you have a phrase like this on it: `Secret government figures show'? Are we now running the Melbourne Institute, are we?DT4CREANMr Crean—Yes.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Is that now the Treasury figures, in the Melbourne Institute? You could have gone into the paper, and you could have tried to be honest. You could have said `The Melbourne Institute says', or `The Melbourne Institute believes', or something like that. But that was not good enough for you, was it?DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Hotham.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That was not the point you were trying to make.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, my point of order is this. I asked what the Melbourne Institute modelling showed, and that is what he is not addressing himself to because what that modelling shows is that they are wrong, that their whole tax package is wrong, and that is what he has to fess up to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer, and I ask him to defer from constant references to the advertisement in his hand.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Mr Speaker, I was asked whether or not the Melbourne Institute made that advertisement accurate. The Melbourne Institute did not make that advertisement accurate because it claims there were secret Treasury documents. When the so-called secret Treasury documents are released today, what the Australian public deserves is an apology from the Australian Labor Party for its misleading and fabricated advertisement on the eve of the election. It is as false today as it was then.DT4CREANMr Crean—You fraud.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham.111111Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how Australia's trading performance is standing up in the face of global economic uncertainty?111Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Hinkler for his question, and I congratulate him on his fine victory in that very marginal Queensland seat.The short answer is that our exporters are doing extremely well in very difficult circumstances. They are diversifying and contributing greatly to the economic performance, as reflected by the comments in the Economic Roundup by the Treasury and by the most recent comments this day by the Treasurer. In fact, it is a superb performance, and it means more jobs here in the Australian economy.Exports to the USA are up 40 per cent in the nine months to September compared with the same nine months of the previous year. Exports to the UK are up 85 per cent, and include some specular efforts by the Australian wine industry. Wine industry exports for this calendar year to the world will go through the $800 million mark. Exports to India are up by 33 per cent. South Asia is certainly building up nicely. Exports to Germany are up 32 per cent. Germany is a critical market in Europe and a linchpin for our activities in that direction.Even in Asia exports have been mixed, which is a sign of softening. Japan is up seven per cent, Taiwan is up seven per cent, and Hong Kong, notwithstanding all the difficulties of that economy but perhaps reflecting its hub port role, is up eight per cent.The key to this has been the government's determination to encourage our exporters to diversify and to spread the Austrade network and the focus beyond traditional markets into South America and elsewhere.In addition to that, we are putting real effort into country to country bilateral negotiations, and there is real progress in the outcome for the Market Development Task Force. I am pleased to advise the House that tomorrow, ahead of the APEC meetings in Kuala Lumpur, I will table the individual action plan for Australia, Trade equals jobs. The government has maintained this pattern of producing an IAP so that nothing is being done behind closed doors. That will be available to everybody.Finally, I add that the government will be contributing to the recognition of the gold medal performance of our exporters with the National Export Awards coming up early in December in Sydney. I look forward to those.111111Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall stating at the annual dinner of Australian Business Ltd:We were up-front, we were unashamed, we were forthright, we were open, we were honest, and we didn't hide anything about it.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Yes.DT4Mr CREAN—You remember that, Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if you didn't hide anything about it, why did your tax review chairman, David Vos, say today:Not all of the policy has been revealed by the government.Prime Minister, why didn't you reveal all of the information to the Australian public? What have you got to hide?111Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do remember that speech. I remember it very well. I also re member the very warm reception I received from 1,200 business men and women, who were very pleased to see that the government had been returned and that once again the coalition was in charge of the economic and political affairs of the Australian nation.When I made those remarks, I had in mind a comparison that caught my fancy and passed through my mind before I got up to speak. That was the comparison between our candour in 1998 and their deceit in 1993. We all remember that in 1993 they promised tax cuts, they campaigned against a goods and services tax—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the honourable member for Hotham a point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, this is the Prime Minister contradicted by a person he appoints. This has got nothing to do with the comparison that he wants to go back to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was put in mind of that comparison—of how in 1993 they campaigned against a GST and they promised tax cuts, and when they won the election they did neither. When they won the election, they put up every indirect tax they could lay their hands on. By comparison, if you go back over every election that has been held in this country since World War II, there would not have been an election where any government had been more open, more honest, more candid, more forthright and more explicit about a fundamental measure of economic reform. And it is to the great credit of the coalition that it had the courage, the honesty and the guts to say what was needed for the future of the Australian economy. I remain immensely proud of the fact that we did that and even more proud of the fact that we were able to win the support of the Australian people. 112112Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Mr Speaker, I congratulate both you and the minister on your respective elevations. Is the minister aware of media claims that job seekers and employers may experience some difficulty contacting the appropriate agencies for assistance through the Job Network? How can job seekers and employers find out where to go for assistance through the Job Network?112Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question and I congratulate him on the close interest he takes in the Job Network. I am aware of an article by Brian Toohey in the Sun-Herald on Sunday, syndicated to various other newspapers, which claimed that Centrelink would be better advised to employ more people to answer the phone. Centrelink is not my responsibility. But the article went on to say that better call centres would improve the chances of the unemployed getting a job. That is my responsibility.Mr Toohey is a very senior journalist who deserves to be taken seriously, so I can report to the House that I personally called Centrelink's new start line, 132850. I was put on hold for three minutes before being answered by a real-life human being who was able to give me perfectly comprehensive information about Job Network members in my area.I then called Centrelink's employer line, 131158. I am pleased to report to the House that I was immediately answered by a real-life human being. I also called the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business's job seeker line, 136268, several times. I am pleased to report to the House that on every occasion I was immediately answered by a real-life human being who dealt with my queries in a very courteous way.I can report to the House that since July 1998 the job seeker line operated by the department of employment services, 136268, has had 99 per cent of calls answered within 15 seconds. I can also report that the employment line operated by the department of employment services, 131715, since April 1998 has had 96 per cent of calls answered within 15 seconds. I am told that the call centre industry would regard this performance as absolutely world class. I should also point out that, of the 22 call centres operated by Centrelink, 14 are in regional and rural areas. Obviously, this is very good for employment in country Australia.113113Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer stand by his statement last Friday that `I say we have all the material that they can require . . . and if they want more I stand ready and willing and available'? Treasurer, will you guarantee that the documents you table later this afternoon will be all the documents relevant to alternative modelling of the government's tax package?113Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—What I propose to release is the work that was done by the Treasury modelling tax changes on the household expenditure survey. That is what I intend to release.DT4CREANMr Crean—All of them?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham has asked his question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Let me make this point, Mr Speaker—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. I call the member for Hotham.DT4CREANMr Crean—It goes to relevance. My question asked whether the Treasurer was going to release all of the documents. All of them! You should require him to answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hotham is well aware that the answer to a question is entirely the business of the minister and that the question that he asked, as I noted it, invited a much wider ranging answer than the minister has currently been giving.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Don't get so upset: it is only the first day, Simon! Mr Speaker, what I propose to release is the household expenditure survey—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. If the member for Hotham persists with frivolous points of order, I will take action. I will hear the member for Hotham on a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—This is not frivolous, Mr Speaker. It refers to comments you made yesterday on taking the chair. Doesn't this constitute scorn and derision?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat and consider himself warned.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, Mr Speaker, what I propose to release is the Treasury advice to the government and the modelling in relation to the effect of the government's tax package done under costing of the household expenditure survey.This treatment of the household expenditure survey data is wrong. It is nothing more than a statistical nonsense. The HES is based on a sample survey. As the data are divided into smaller and smaller subsets, the accuracy of any derived estimates declines rapidly. Some cells used in the opposition analysis contain as few as seven households and are clearly useless as a guide to the impact of the package. Word for word, that was a statement by Mr Dawkins, Labor Treasurer, to this House on 3 March 1992.On 3 March 1992, in response to a freedom of information request from the member for Flinders, he released Treasury modelling of the household expenditure survey which said then, when the Treasury advised the Labor Party, that the household expenditure survey was not reliable. In fact, this was the document that the Labor Treasurer, Mr Dawkins, tabled in the parliament in March 1992, which included a Treasury minute—and the Treasury advice has not changed from 1992 to 1998—that the HES sample did not accurately reflect the Australian population in respect of the household characteristics—8I4MARTINMr Martin—Why are you relying on it?CT4Mr COSTELLO—We are not relying on it. You are relying on it. That is the whole point. Right throughout the election campaign the Labor Party said, `Where is the household expenditure survey?' after their own Treasurer, in March 1992, had come into this House and said it was unreliable. In response to the member for Flinders, he had tabled a minute to that effect from the Treasury, and its advice has not changed in the last seven years. And now one of their frontbenchers says, `Why are you relying on it?' For heavens sake, we have been trying to make the point now for seven weeks that we do not rely on it. Neither did the Labor Party up until 1998, when it suited it to turn itself inside out, reverse its position, disagree with what it had said in government and retreat into the isolationist, populist rubbish that it is now going on with.114114Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Mr Speaker, I would like to add my personal congratulations to those of other members of the House. My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, will you inform the House what action the government is taking to prevent the job losses of thousands of young Australians, if youth wages were abolished, as proposed by the Labor Party and the ACTU? How will the coalition safeguard the welfare of our young people in the face of this attack?114Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question. I also take the opportunity of congratulating her on her campaign. The great thing about her campaign is that she has been campaigning, in the sense of being a good member, from the day she was elected. It is a great tribute to her. It is no surprise, Mr Speaker, that she would ask a question about the job prospects of young people as it relates to young people in her electorate.The government is very concerned about youth unemployment and, for that reason, it is a policy intention of ours to legislate to protect an existing system which has served this country very well for many years and, in particular, which protects the jobs of young people.Our concern is that when this legislation is introduced into the parliament all the indications from the Labor Party, and certainly very clearly from the ACTU, are that they will oppose the legislative measures we intend introducing to protect young people's jobs. It is, I believe, an incredible policy position for the Labor Party to be gearing up to oppose a measure which will protect young people's jobs.I say that in the context of some of the very strong positions taken by others on this issue. For example, Tony Blair's government in the UK have recently had a report on minimum wages and they have specifically indicated their intention to introduce an aged based youth wage in the UK, which is all that we are proposing—namely, the retention of that system in Australia. They are going to introduce it.In New South Wales and in Queensland, where we have state Labor governments, neither of those governments have moved to abolish the junior wage rate system that we have. Neither of those governments have moved to adopt the competency based system which the Labor Party, and certainly the ACTU, would prefer. We understand why they would prefer it. But for 10 years they have been looking for a viable alternative to junior wage rates and for 10 years they have failed to come up with a system that would be workable and which would protect young people's jobs.If you look at other evidence on this issue, the National Institute of Labor Studies said on 1 November:This is the most irresponsible action I have seen from the union movement.The Productivity Commission said on 16 October:A one per cent increase in youth wages would lead to a decrease in youth employment of between two and five per cent.The results quite strongly suggest that there would be a more than proportionate reduction in youth employment. The Australian Retailers Association on 30 September said:In the retail industry alone, the jobs of more than 220,000 young people are jeopardised—60,000 at risk of immediately being laid off.Even the Canberra Times , in a comment piece, said on 26 October:You have to wonder how serious some people are about lowering youth unemployment. Since we all agree the level of youth unemployment is a national tragedy, one can only wonder at how some people keep wanting to put even more obstacles in the way of young people finding jobs.There could not be stronger evidence in support of the proposition the government is advancing. I say to the Labor Party—and perhaps hopefully to the new members of the Labor Party—this is an issue that the Labor Party should re-examine because the fact of the matter is that, if the junior wage rate system goes, a lot of young people will lose their jobs. If that is the case, that result will be on your head.115115Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, are you aware that the Prime Minister said before the election that his GST `is the greatest job generation scheme on the table'? Minister, do you recall saying since the election that the GST is `not going to solve the employment problem' and `was not a panacea for unemployment'? Minister, who is correct: you or the Prime Minister?.115Abbott, Tony MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPEmployment Services10—The Prime Minister is always correct in everything he says. Nevertheless, I am sure the Prime Minister would also agree with me that the GST, in conjunction with all the other policies this government is putting in place, will settle the unemployment problems this country has.115115Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the government aware of claims that, according to Treasury household expenditure survey analysis, five times the compensation provided in the government's tax package is required to look after low income earners? What is the government's response to these claims?115Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for Eden-Monaro for his question and I acknowledge the great election victory he had on 3 October.Back in 1992, Labor Treasurer John Dawkins informed this House that the household expenditure survey was not a reliable way to cost all tax changes. It was not a reliable survey to use on that basis. He said:The treatment of household expenditure survey data is wrong. It is nothing more than a statistical nonsense.He also tendered in those large documents a Treasury minute to him as the Treasurer saying why the household expenditure survey was not relevant. It is a survey that is done every five years. If you happen during the survey period to buy a lump sum item, for example, it is assumed you buy one every week. If your expenditure in a particular week includes the purchase of a refrigerator, for example, instead of showing expenditure of $100 for the week, you are assumed on the basis of survey data to have spent $800. In relation to self-employed people, it is notoriously unreliable as to their savings ratios. On the basis of the household expenditure survey, some of them have a dissaving at the rate of 300 per cent per annum.That did not stop the Labor Party in 1998 reversing its position and saying that the only reliable measure was the household expenditure survey and advertising the day before the election saying that Treasury papers would show that the effect was five times greater than the CPI analysis, which was 1.9 per cent. The analysis that John Dawkins said was right in 1992 was the analysis which was used for the 1985 white paper, where Kim Beazley supported the GST.Today I release all those documents to the House in response to a freedom of information request, precisely the same thing that John Dawkins did in relation to the request by the then member for Flinders. It will show, Mr Speaker, if you look at it on a household expenditure basis, the effect on the cost of living across 11 different household groups at five different income levels. Remember the Labor Party said it would show five times 1.9 per cent, or 9.5 per cent. The cost of living increase varied between 1.3 per cent and 2.5 per cent. Treasury analysis—remember the government said 1.9 per cent and the Labor Party claimed in advertising it was 9.5—was that the all household price change, on the HES based analysis, was 1.8 per cent, lower than the CPI effect of 1.9. It was lower.DT4CREANMr Crean—Is it all the documents, Peter?CT4Mr COSTELLO—We are back to the documents now, are we? No wonder we are back to the documents. I will table that advertisement, Mr Speaker. The reason why the analysis was not put out—and we said it at the time—was that the Treasury had said in 1985 it had advised the Labor Party to do it on a CPI basis; the Treasury had said in 1992, when it modelled Fightback, to do it on a CPI basis and the Treasury had told us to do it on a CPI basis. The Treasury had said it was unreliable. We had it done to make sure the compensation package would exceed the cost on any measure, which is why we chose four per cent, and the all household result was 1.8 per cent. The Labor Party advertising on the eve of the election, I am afraid to say, was totally false and fabricated.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Is it tabled?DT4CREANMr Crean—Did you table it?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I table it.116116Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the finding in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report that over two-thirds of people attempting to contact Centrelink by phone, including pensioners, are unable to get through to a human being? Minister, do you support the announcement by the Minister for Community Services that will effectively mean computers at a kiosk replace people in the provision of advice to pensioners? Will the minister take up with him the difficulties retirees have in accessing Centrelink services and the fact that many pensioners would prefer to talk to a skilled and dedicated Centrelink staff member rather than a computer at a kiosk?116Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—First and foremost, I would remind the honourable member that the relevant minister is a she, not a he. Indeed, Senator Jocelyn Newman, who has responsibility in this area, is known to be a compassionate and skilled politician and a minister who has put a lot of work and effort into this area. The decision that she has made is one that is supported by the whole of government, of which I am part.116116Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—Mr Speaker, may I add my name to the long list of those congratulating you on your ascension to high office. My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister outline to the House the government's ongoing commitment to delivering quality education for all Australian children, and is he aware of any alternative proposals in this area?116Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEducation, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, may I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation, which I have not previously had the chance to do. I also congratulate the member for Kalgoorlie on becoming the representative of the world's largest electorate. He will be an excellent representative. The government, unlike the people on the opposition benches, is committed to providing young Australians with basic literacy and numeracy standards which will ground their education for their future careers, lifting teachers' skills and providing apprenticeships to meet skill shortages in rural Australia. They constitute the core of the very important election commitments we made.On the other side of the House I am aware of alternatives and that the opposition education policy is a shambles. This is not a partisan comment because it is, indeed, the description offered by the member for Werriwa, the little Red Indian sitting on the back bench up there, who made it very clear that this was not a policy worth supporting.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! That was not an appropriate reference to the member for Werriwa. But I must say I have heard a great deal of scorn and derision from not only the member for Hotham but also the member for Batman and, in one instance, the member for Bruce. I think we could all restrain ourselves. The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, far be it from me to debate the point, but that is the description by the member for Werriwa of himself. He was a little Red Indian who was not going to take it any more on the front bench of the Labor Party.I must make it clear that during the election campaign I unfairly criticised the member for Werriwa because I wrongly believed that he was the author of the education policy of the Labor Party. But he has now made it clear through the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 October that the policy was in fact butchered by staffers the day before it was released, to the Labor Party's embarrassment. He said:I put 18 months into a policy document to have it butchered by staffers the day before it was released . . .He also said:Mike Pezzullo, chief policy adviser, and John Angley, who worked for Kim as finance minister and had no involvement in the education area, rewrote the bloody thing, all under the approval of McMullan.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—I raise a point of order on relevance. The question quite clearly went to alternatives to the government's current position in the area of education. I know this fellow has had his portfolio halved—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, no.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—and he has got a smaller and smaller capacity to bore us as a result of that—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—but the issue of relevance is still important to him.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition cannot expect that level of tolerance from the chair. I call the minister, and I ask him to make his remarks relevant to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, I was asked about alternatives and the quality of those alternatives. There is surely no better authority on this than the member for Werriwa, who described in detail the nature of the Labor Party's education policy. What he said was this:So they stuffed it up. . . . So we have an argument in the airport lounge, and I'm told the Victorian branch was printing different versions at 1 o'clock in the morning and taking out a dozen spelling mistakes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the minister's attention to the question.BT4Dr KEMP—Mr Speaker, I am describing the alternatives that I am aware of—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand precisely what the minister is doing.BT4Dr KEMP—to the government's comprehensive plan to raise education standards. Let us be quite clear what this means. It means that the Labor Party has an education policy that is so flawed that the shadow minister resigned rather than take responsibility for that policy.All that can be said is that the member for Dobell was not too intellectually proud to pick it up; indeed, apparently any old policy will do for him. He is apparently very satisfied to be the education spokesman for the intellectual vacuum which now exists in the Labor Party in this vital policy area.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the House comes to order, I will call the member for Brisbane.117117Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is it the case that Mr Des Moore has produced a report at your request which recommends that minimum wages should be cut in real terms? Can you confirm that Mr Moore's report cost Australian taxpayers $35,000? Minister, why should Australian workers, who have been expected to work harder for longer hours with greater stress and less job security, take any notice of this report when the taxpayer has paid Mr Moore about double the yearly minimum wage to recommend that they should get less?117Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The Labour Ministers Council is a meeting of state and Commonwealth ministers and, as part of the process of the Labour Ministers Council, it was agreed that a report would be commissioned from Des Moore at a cost of $35,000. The agreement amongst members of the LMC is that those governments which support the proposed project will fund the project. Some are in it.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—Obviously, the Labor Party ones would not be in it. As to the cost, I think it is $35,000, which I would have to say is a very reasonable figure for the report which he has prepared. The report has not yet been released, but it will be released as it will be presented to the LMC which is meeting at the end of the month. In terms of the contents of the report, they simply establish the argument for further deregulation of the labour market. The bottom line of his proposal is that if we had a more deregulated market then we would be able to create many more jobs.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—It is a reduction of minimum wages in real terms.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Brisbane has asked his question.WI4Mr REITH—The only point I would make to the opposition shadow minister is to say that any proposition which is forcefully argued and which is proposing changes to create hundreds of thousands of jobs deserves to be looked at. It deserves to be the subject of reasoned and informed public debate. When you have got that report then you can make, hopefully, an informed and reasoned contribution to it.I am not surprised that the Labor Party would want to attack Des Moore personally because, when Des Moore was running the IPA, he put out an IPA backgrounder which revealed that the Labor Party in government was funding unions—which he estimated at a cost of $130 million to $140 million a year. So, instead of attacking Des Moore personally, why don't you wait until the report is published?118118Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Can the minister inform the House of the impact of the changes that the government introduced on 1 July in relation to work rights for people seeking asylum in Australia? Is the Minister aware of any proposal to disallow the regulation? What would be the impact of this disallowance?118Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I might say that it is welcome to have a sensible and informed question on immigration issues, particularly from the area that the member represents. Like my colleagues, I commend him for his magnificent maiden speech so early in the parliament. I want to take the opportunity to explain to members—and perhaps particularly to members opposite—some of the concerns that I have at the moment about immigration.At any time we have in the order of 50,000 people unlawfully here. Many of them are overstayers of visits to Australia—sometimes students, and others. Numbers of people make asylum claims in Australia. We regard our international obligations as being serious issues which we have to address, particularly when asylum claims are made. We spend a great deal of money in assessing those claims properly and making considered judgments in relation to them. Unfortunately, numbers of people today seek to remain in Australia simply for the purpose of working—often when they are unlawful. They are involving themselves in many devious ways of achieving that outcome.At the moment, some 5,000 people are involved in six class actions before the Federal Court challenging immigration status. Most of them are not asylum seekers—let me make that very clear. The numbers are continuing to grow. To give you an idea of the class actions, in one group, 670 people have paid $500 each to legal advisers. You can add that amount up fairly easily—it is in the order of $300,000 to pursue one legal case for a couple of days in court. We have another class action involving 2,900 cases. I do not know what the individual charge is; but, if it is anything like the former, it runs into more than a million and a half dollars.Why are these people pursuing class actions? They are doing it because it enables them, with delays before the Federal Court of Australia sometimes of a year or more, to access employment. What is happening is that—5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Why don't you fund the courts? PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—You need more people in the courts.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—You say that, but let me just say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you are serious about these matters let us understand that the more matters before the courts, the longer they take to deal with. What is happening is that, because there is an advantage in being able to obtain work rights, people are obtaining funds to go into these class actions to further delay the system and to delay us being able to give justice to those who have bona fide asylum claims. We know that they are now seeking to use the intervention power that I have to also delay their removal and to use it as a basis for applying for bridging visas to remain in Australia and to obtain work rights.I am receiving at the moment on the average 500 cases per month. Most of them are without substance. Those that do have substance will obviously be considered by me with every compassion that can be offered. But let it be clear that the only way we are able to remove this sore is to remove the opportunity from those who have already had their cases considered by my department, by the Refugee Review Tribunal, perhaps the Immigration Review Tribunal and often by the courts already, because these involve multiple applications. Single cases have been rejected. The removal of this employment opportunity is the only way in which we are going to be able to remove this sore. I lament very much that the Australian Democrats are moving to repeal this regulation, but I will lament it even more if the Labor Party were to support them in relation to that matter, particularly in relation to the important issue of maintaining integrity in relation to this process.119119Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election. My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Why did you let the Office of Asset Sales run a selection process for a private consortium to manage the Telstra sale without any reference to the fees to be paid and only negotiate fee arrangements after the consortium had been chosen for the job? How do you explain the Auditor-General's findings that they were paid almost $500,000 in success fees for shares that were given free to Telstra staff or not even sold, even though there was no requirement for this in the contract, and that success fee benchmarks were set at an excessively low level, thus costing the taxpayer an additional $5 million to $10 million? Why were the total Telstra sale costs $65 million over budget?119Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—Let me start at the last statement made by the honourable member for Melbourne. The simple fact was that the fees that were paid for the sale of the first tranche of Telstra were not over budget; they were exactly in accordance with what was approved by cabinet. Let me just indicate this on a comparative basis: the fees that were paid for the sale of Telstra amounted to 1.8 per cent of what was returned. With telco sales in other parts of the world, in Europe or the United States, the average is four per cent. The cost of selling telecommunications companies on the open market averages four per cent. Our cost was 1.8 per cent. Clearly, great value for money was received. What Labor does not accept is that that particular offer by the coalition government was overwhelmingly embraced by the Australian people.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume a seat—I do not ask him to return to his seat—and I call the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The point of order is this: a series of specific questions arising from an Auditor-General's report into the competence of this minister's handling of this particular matter have been raised. They are very specific. They did not require the response of a generalised answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I noted the question as it was being asked and I consider the minister to be entirely in order. I call the minister.HQ5Mr FAHEY—What I am indicating very clearly to the House is that this was not a decision that was welcomed by the Labor Party at the time and they wanted us to pull the sale. They talked about the fire sale. They told us we were going to flog off the shares for nothing and get no value for taxpayers. It was $6 billion or $7 billion that was being predicted by the Labor Party—not value for money—but I say clearly that the very cost-effective work done by those advisers appointed by the government meant that it did return to the Australian people $14.3 billion on top of a $3 billion recapitalisation.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister will resume his seat. I call the member for Melbourne.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked specific questions about a rorted tendering process and taxpayers' money that has been wasted, and he has failed to answer the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. I have ruled on relevance. I gather the minister was winding up, but I invite him to do so.HQ5Mr FAHEY—I simply conclude by saying this: an independent assessment was done to appoint the business advisers. Due regard—in fact absolute regard—was taken for getting value for money for Australian taxpayers. That was achieved, and the Auditor-General stated very clearly that it was a remarkable result in a very volatile market which existed at that time.120120Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise the House of the level of support for the government's tax reform package amongst the rural sector and of the benefits tax reform will bring to people of my electorate, Riverina?120Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTrade10—Mr Speaker, may I congratulate the member for Riverina on her election to this place. The electorate of Riverina is that food bowl seat in New South Wales. Also may I congratulate you on your election to the high office of Speaker of the House of Representatives.Before I respond to the honourable member's question, may I seek your indul gence to inform the House that I have been alerted earlier today that there has been a fire in the Edmund Barton Building on Kings Avenue, and staff of my department and other departments and visitors in the building have been evacuated. I understand that one person has been injured and taken to hospital. I have no doubt that all members of this House will share my concern for the welfare of all the people who work there.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence had not in fact been granted, but I am sure that every member of the House would concur that that was an appropriate intervention.SU5Mr VAILE—I apologise, Mr Speaker. It is a very relevant question that the member for Riverina raises, and quite obviously the people of rural and regional Australia support the government's policies by virtue of the fact that they have re-elected us to government. It is the coalition that is sitting on the government benches, not the Australian Labor Party. They quite clearly rejected the policies of the Australian Labor Party. People in rural and regional Australia obviously supported the economic management of this government over the last 2½ to three years, which has produced a low interest rate regime, low inflation and stability for the future. They supported that wholeheartedly by returning seats like those held now by the member for Riverina, the member for Blair and the member for Kalgoorlie back into the coalition fold, not to the Labor Party. You did not win those seats in regional Australia.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invite the minister to return to the question.SU5Mr VAILE—It is interesting to note the reason why the people in regional Australia have supported the coalition's policies, and particularly the tax reform package. Some very constructive research done by the Centre for Agriculture and Regional Economics out of the University of New England on our tax package indicated that there would be an increase in disposable income in all categories of the farm sector. On a beef or wool farm there would be an increase in disposable income of $5,800 per annum. On dry land cropping and mixed grazing properties there would be an increase in disposable income of $8,549 per annum. Interestingly, particularly for the Member for Riverina, on irrigated cropping and grazing properties—those that are located in the member for Riverina's electorate—there will be an increase in disposable income of $9,341 per annum.That is a study that has been independently done out of the University of New England. That is the reason rural and regional Australia absolutely supported the coalition's policies that we have implemented over the last 2½ years to provide economic stability in that sector in this country and to build a foundation for the future of Australia. They have supported that.That was supported by New South Wales farmers. What did the farming community say about the policies of the Australian Labor Party? The United Graziers Association in Queensland said:The ALP tax package is of limited help to the bush.The UGA President, Mr Noel Kennedy, commented:We are disappointed that the proposal—this is the ALP's proposal—does not address the myriad of inbuilt taxes which affect our ability to compete internationally and I would call on the opposition to reconsider its proposals.This was during the campaign. He went on to say:In particular, there needs to be a review of the fuel excises which have a direct effect on the cost of freight and hence our competitiveness.Most importantly—and the opposition should take note of this comment by Mr Noel Kennedy—he said:We are also very concerned that assets acquired pre capital gains tax will become taxable from 1 January 1999 and that valuations will mean further expense for already cash-strapped graziers.That was the policy that people in rural Australia did not like from the Australian Labor Party. They voted against it and they supported our policies. The NFF President, Ian Donges, said in a release:On top of the current low interest rates, low inflation and current exchange rate a tax environment like this would make Australia's farm exports much more competitive. That means more jobs for salary and wage earners in the sector which provides as many as 32 per cent of jobs, mostly in rural and regional Australia, and a better standard of living for all of us.Mr Speaker, that is why rural and regional Australia supported and re-elected the coalition government. That is why straight after the election there was a banner headline in one of the rural newspapers which said `The bush delivers to the coalition'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I invite the minister to wind up his remarks.SU5Mr VAILE—The bush recognised that it was only going to be the coalition government that would deliver for them.121121Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister in mid-1997 allocate $10 million to the Hunter Advantage Fund to offset job losses from the proposed closure of the BHP Steelworks? Will the Prime Minister now confirm that, although $8.4 million has been allocated for a variety of projects, not one dollar has been spent and not one job created? Prime Minister, can you explain to the workers of the Hunter why you have not ensured that this money was spent to create jobs?121Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am aware that after the announcement made by BHP in the middle of 1997 to phase down its operation in Newcastle there was a cross-party response from the New South Wales Labor government and the federal government, and a prime ministerial task force was established. I found ready cooperation from the union movement in the city of Newcastle as well as from the Chamber of Commerce. I will investigate what has been raised in the honourable member's question and I will come back to him.121121May, Margaret, MPMs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to high office. My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, what is the government's response to Iraq's refusal to cooperate fully with the United Nations Special Commission as required by relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and of the possibility that military conflict will occur as a result?122Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for her question and congratulate her on her election to the House. I know she will make a very fine member. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your elevation to the speakership.Iraq's failure to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission is a totally unacceptable flouting of its international obligations as set out in a variety of Security Council resolutions and in the agreement signed with the United Nations Secretary-General during February of this year. On 5 November the Security Council adopted a further resolution condemning Iraq's action in this respect. We are deeply disturbed by Iraq's calculated defiance of the will of the international community and we condemn unreservedly this breach of international law. A diplomatic resolution to this crisis is still possible if Iraq immediately and unconditionally resumes full cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.The House should be aware, though, that if Iraq does not do this then military action may be the only alternative to ensure that Iraq does not resume its weapons of mass destruction program. If this does happen, the Iraqi government will have no-one to blame but itself for the damage and for the hardship that will likely result for the Iraqi people.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Documents122122Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act— Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Report for 1997-98.Indigenous Land Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Torres Strait Regional Authority—Report for 1997-98.Aboriginal Hostels Limited—Report for 1997-98.Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report relating to Warlmanpa (Muckaty Pastoral Lease) land claim No. 135 (No. 51).Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act—Aboriginals Benefit Reserve—Report for 1997-98.Building on land rights for the next generation—Review of Act by John Reeves, Q.C.—Appendices.Report, August 1998.ADI Limited—Report for 1997-98.Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act—Administrative Appeals Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Administrative Review Council—22nd report, for 1997-98.Report No. 42—Contracting out of government services.Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act—Affirmative Action Agency—Report for period 1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998.Air Services Act—Airservices Australia—Report for 1997-98.Archives Act—National Archives of Australia and National Archives of Australia Advisory Council—Reports for 1997-98.Australia Council Act—Australia Council—Report for 1997-98.Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act—Australia New Zealand Food Authority—Report for 1997-98.Australia-Japan Foundation Act—Australia-Japan Foundation—Report for 1997-98.Australia-Korea Foundation—Report for 1996-97.Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act—Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Report for 1997-98.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Authority—Report for 1997-98. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act—Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research—Report for 1997-98.Australian Communications Authority—Report for 1997-98.Australian Federal Police Act—Australian Federal Police—Report for 1997-98.Australian Film Commission Act—Australian Film Commission—Report for 1997-98.Film Australia Limited—Report for 1997-98.Australian Film Finance Corporation Limited—Report for 1997-98.Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act—Australian Film, Television and Radio School—Report for 1997-98.Australian Heritage Commission Act—Australian Heritage Commission—Report for 1997-98.Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Act—Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 1997-98.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act—Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Report for 1997-98.Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act—Australian Maritime Safety Authority—Report for 1997-98.Australian National Maritime Museum Act—Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 1997-98.Australian National Training Authority Act—Australian National Training Authority—Australia's vocational education and training system—Report for 1997—Volumes 1, 2, 3.Australian National Training Authority—Report for 1997-98.Australian Postal Corporation Act—Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post)—Report for 1997-98.Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act—Australian Security Intelligence Organization—Report for 1997-98.Australian Sports Drug Agency Act—Australian Sports Drug Agency—Operational plan for 1998-99.Report for 1997-98.Australian Statistics Advisory Council—Report for 1997-98.Australian Trade Commission Act—Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Report for 1997-98. Australian War Memorial Act—Australian War Memorial—Report for 1997-98.Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act—Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Act—Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation—Report for 1997-98.Broadcasting Services Act—Australian Broadcasting Authority—Report for 1997-98.Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 1997-98.Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act—Classification Board and Classification Review Board—Report for 1997-98.Coal Industry Act—Joint Coal Board—51st report, for 1997-98.Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act—Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 1997-98.Commonwealth Electoral Act—Australian Electoral Commission—Reports for 1997-98.Commonwealth Grants Commission Act—Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report for 1997-98.Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Act—Centrelink—Report for 1997-98.Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act—Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Criminology Research Act—Australian Institute of Criminology and the Criminology Research Council—26th reports, for 1997-98.Customs Administration Act—Australian Customs Service—Report for 1997-98.Dairy Produce Act—Australian Dairy Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) Act—Data-matching program—Department of Veterans' Affairs—Report for 1995-98.Defence Act—Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations—Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management—Report for period 1 February 1997 to 30 June 1998.Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—13th report, for 1997-98.Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act—Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority—Report for 1997-98.Defence Housing Authority Act—Defence Housing Authority—Report for 1997-98. Department of Social Security—Compliance activity in Centrelink—Report for period 1 July 1997 to 31 March 1998.Director of Public Prosecutions Act—Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions—Report for 1997-98.Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal Employment Opportunity Program—Reports for 1997-98—Army and Air Force Canteen Service (AAFCANS).Australia Post.Australian Film, Television and Radio School.Reserve Bank of Australia.Equity and Diversity Program 1994-98—Airservices Australia—Progress report for 1997-98.Family Law Act—Australian Institute of Family Studies—Report for 1997-98.Family Court of Australia—Report for 1997-98.Family Law Council—Reports—Foror 1997-98.Child contact orders: Enforcement and penalties.Parental child abduction.Federal Airports Corporation Act—Federal Airports Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Finance—Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statement for June 1998.Supporting applications of issues from the Advance during June 1998.Final budget outcome 1997-98.Provision for running costs borrowings—Statement for June 1998.Supporting applications of issues from the Provision during June 1998.Financial Transaction Reports Act—Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—Report for 1997-98.Fisheries Administration Act—Australian Fisheries Management Authority—Report for 1997-98.Health Insurance Act—Professional Services Review—Report for 1997-98.Health Services Australia—Report for 1997-98.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act—Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report for 1997-98. Report on Article 18—Freedom of religion and belief.Immigration Review Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act—National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme—Report for 1997-98.Industrial Relations Act—Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Australian Industrial Registry—Reports for 1997-98.Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act—Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Report for 1997-98.Insurance and Superannuation Commission—Report for 1997-98.International Air Services Commission Act—International Air Services Commission—Report for 1997-98.Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited—Report for 1997-98.Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation—Final report for 1997-98.Meat Research Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees No.1—Report for 1997-98.National Film and Sound Archive—Review for 1997-98.National Gallery Act—National Gallery of Australia—Report for 1997-98.National Health Act—Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Report for 1997-98.National Library Act—National Library of Australia—Report for 1997-98.National Museum of Australia Act—National Museum of Australia—Report for 1997-98.National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act—National Occupational Health and Safety Commission—Report for 1997-98.National Office for the Information Economy—Report for 1997-98.National Road Transport Commission Act—National Road Transport Commission—Report for 1997-98.National Science and Technology Centre (Questacon)—Report for 1997-98.Native Title Act—National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act and Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act—Australian Safeguards Office and the Chemical Weapons Convention Office—Report for 1997-98.Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing—Report for 1997-98.Office of Government Information Technology—Report for 1997-98.Official Establishments Trust—Report for 1997-98.Ombudsman Act—Commonwealth and Defence Force Ombudsman—Report, including a report pursuant to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act, for 1997-98.Parliamentary Counsel Act—Office of Parliamentary Counsel—Report for 1997-98.Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority—Report for 1997-98.Pig Industry Act—Australian Pork Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Dairy Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Energy Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Fisheries Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Pig Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Privacy Act—Privacy Commissioner—Report for 1997-98.Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act—Report on the Act and National Cultural Heritage Fund for 1997-98.Public Lending Right Act—Public Lending Right Committee—Report for 1997-98.Public Service Act—Attorney-General's Department—Report for 1997-98.Commissioner for Superannuation—Report, incorporating reports on the administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act and the Superannuation Act, for 1997-98.Department of Communications and the Arts—Report for 1997-98.Department of Defence—Report for 1997-98.Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs—Report for 1997-98.Department of Finance and Administration—Report for 1997-98. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Report for 1997-98.Department of Health and Family Services—Reports, including report on the administration and operation of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and the Therapeutic Goods Administration, for 1997-98.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Reports, including a report on the Adult Migrant English Program under the Immigration (Education) Act and a statement under the Australian Citizenship Act, for 1997-98.Department of Industry, Science and Tourism—Report for 1997-98.Department of Primary Industries and Energy—Report for 1997-98.Department of the Environment—Report, including reports of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and on the operation of the Hazardous Waste (Regulations of Exports and Imports) Act and the Ozone Protection Act, for 1997-98.Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Reports for 1997-98.Department of the Treasury—Report for 1997-98.Department of Transport and Regional Development—Report for 1997-98.Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business—Report, incorporating a report on the operation of Part V of the Workplace Relations Act, for 1997-98.Public Service and Merit Protection Commission—Report, incorporating the report of the Merit Protection and Review Agency in accord with the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act, for 1997-98.Repatriation Medical Authority—4th report for 1997-98.Reserve Bank of Australia Act—Reserve Bank of Australia—Report for 1997-98.Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Comcare Australia, including the reports of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and QWL Pty Limited—Report for 1997-98.Services Trust Funds Act—Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund—Report for 1997-98.Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund—Report for period 1 January 1997 to 30 June 1998.Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund—Report for period 1 January 1997 to 30 June 1998.Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust—Report for 1997-98. Social Security Act—And Public Service Act—Department of Social Security—Report for 1997-98.Social Security Appeals Tribunal—Report for 1997-98.Special Broadcasting Service Act—Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS)—Report for 1997-98.Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act—Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee—Report for 1997-98.Superannuation Act 1976—CSS Board—Report for 1997-98.Superannuation Act 1990—PSS Board—Report for 1997-98.Taxation reform—Documents relating to market research conducted by the Treasury under the community education and information program on taxation reform.Telecommunications (Interception) Act—Telecommunications (Interception) Act—Report for 1996-97.Telstra Corporation Act—Telstra—Report/ Review for 1998.Trade Practices Act—National Competition Council—Report for 1997-98.Treaties—Bilateral with national interest analyses—Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia concerning the Status of Forces, done at Kuala Lumpur on 3 February 1997.Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ukraine on Trade and Economic Cooperation, done at Kyiv on 17 March 1998.Exchange of Letters, done at Canberra on 14 July 1998, between Australia and the Republic of France constituting an Agreement relating to the Movement of Nationals between the Two Countries.Exchange of Letters, done at London on 29 May 1998, constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement on Health Services between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of 21 March 1986.General Agreement on Development Cooperation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, done at Jakarta on 9 July 1998.List of multilateral treaty action under negotiation or consideration by the Australian Government. United Nations—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Australia's reports under the covenant—Report for period March 1987 to December 1995 (Third).Report for period January to December 1996 (Fourth).Veterans' Entitlements Act—Veterans' Review Board—Report for 1997-98.Veterans' Entitlements Act and Public Service Act—Repatriation Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs and the National Treatment Monitoring Committee—Report for 1997-98.War Crimes Act—Report for 1997-98.Wool International Act—Wool International—Report for 1997-98.Workplace Relations Act—Agreement making under the Workplace Relations Act—Report for period 31 December 1996 to 31 December 1997.Report for period January to June 1998.Employment Advocate—Report for 1997-98.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers.Coal Industry Act—Joint Coal Board—51st report, for 1997-98.Commissioner of Taxation—Report for 1997-98.Commonwealth Grants Commission Act—Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report for 1997-98.Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act—Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority—Report for 1997-98.Finance—Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statement for June 1998.Supporting applications of issues from the Advance during June 1998.Final budget outcome 1997-98.Provision for running costs borrowings—Statement for June 1998.Supporting applications of issues from the Provision during June 1998.Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited—Report for 1997-98.Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Military Superannuation and Benefits Board of Trustees No.1—Report for 1997-98.Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing—Report for 1997-98. Office of Government Information Technology—Report for 1997-98.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Energy Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1997-98.Public Service Act—Commissioner for Superannuation—Report, incorporating reports on the administration and operation of the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act and the Superannuation Act, for 1997-98.Department of Communications and the Arts—Report for 1997-98.Department of Finance and Administration—Report for 1997-98.Department of Industry, Science and Tourism—Report for 1997-98.Department of Primary Industries and Energy—Report for 1997-98.Social Security Act and Public Service Act—Department of Social Security—Report for 1997-98.Superannuation Act 1976—CSS Board—Report for 1997-98.Superannuation Act 1990—PSS Board—Report for 1997-98.Trade Practices Act—National Competition Council—Report for 1997-98.Wool International Act—Wool International—Report for 1997-98.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Miscellaneous127127127Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Pursuant to section 9B of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 1997-98. Due to the dissolution to the House on 31 August 1998, the report was unable to be tabled until now. However, copies of the report have been sent to all members and the report has been available in electronic form on the Internet since 16 October 1998.Miscellaneous127127127Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Pursuant to section 9B of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for 1997-98.Miscellaneous127127127Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Pursuant to section 9B of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for 1997-98. As well as being available in printed format, the report has again been produced as an interactive CD-ROM, but in a format which this year makes it possible for it to be loaded onto the Internet. This will allow greater community access to the information in the report, which will also be available on the parliamentary Intranet.Auditor-General's Reports127127127Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the following Auditor-General's reports: Audit reports Nos 3 to 12 for 1998-99.Ordered that the reports be printed.Miscellaneous127127127Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I present the following Auditor-General's report: Annual report of the Australian National Audit Office 1997-98.127Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Miscellaneous127127Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—In accordance with resolution 3 of the House of Representatives, relating to the registration of members' interests, I have appointed Mr B.C. Wright, Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, as the Registrar of Members' Interests in the 39th Parliament.Miscellaneous127127Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I report to the House, in what is a marginally unusual circumstance, that the former Speaker has responded by way of this letter to the accolades and good wishes extended to him yesterday. I table the letter so that any member may have access to it.Matters of Public Importance128128128Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10— 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 threat posed to those on low incomes by the government's proposed GST.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—15:19:00128Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I would not have bothered opening this debate with some reference to the last election if it were not for the absurd triumphalism of the government during question time about that election result and the extraordinary arrogance and rigidity with which they have approached a pretty firm verdict of the Australian people on their proposition during the last election campaign. The government have to explain, as they tell the Australian people that they have to consider nothing from the Senate—they do not need any inquiries, they can take Mal Colston's vote, they can put three-week reporting dates on things like the Vos committee and they can ignore any efforts made by the St Vincent de Paul Society or anybody else to approach them on these matters—why somehow or other they feel vindicated by the verdict of the Australian people. Given the government's arrogance and rigidity, I had better say something about the verdict of the Australian people, who set the record straight.This government, having come into office after 13 years and having enjoyed more than a two-thirds majority over their predecessor in the parliament, found themselves with a larger swing against them than there was against their predecessor at that previous election. They found themselves with the largest number of seats won by an opposition party ever in that situation. In the Senate—after either intentionally or unintentionally misleading the Australian people as to the constitutional arrangements—they managed, where they had previously enjoyed an unprecedented level of support for any governing party, a result for anti-GST parties of 62 per cent. This was after one of the minor parties specifically said, `You do have an option out there. You don't have to vote for Labor. You can vote for the government in the lower house if you wish to and then vote for one of the anti-GST parties in the Senate.'This is a party that says, `We can dismiss the opposition and we can dismiss the attitudes of everybody else on the GST. We are right. We know everything. We have presented absolutely accurately to the Australian people what we wanted them to vote on. We do not have to listen to a thing.'This is the first debate in this parliament since the government announced some of the detail associated with its GST—18 months in which people were allegedly invited to express an opinion on tax reform, to which the government has had no response whatsoever but to go to the polls.The Auditor-General, who is calling them for a lot these days, drew attention to the fact that, while he could not find their election material illegal, he found it `unprecedented'. He found it unprecedented both as to amounts and as to proximity to the election campaign—$17 million of taxpayers' funds spent on Liberal Party advertising. Remember this: the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party campaign director have said we had a seven-week election campaign, not a five-week one. What does that mean—$17 million dollars extra of party political funding? A $17 million campaign which did not once mention the word `GST'—$17 million and the GST was Banquo's ghost at the feast as far as their tax package was concerned.Since that point in time—and having gone through the most monumental flogging that a government has had for some considerable time and managing to secure itself in office with a minority of the people's votes—the arrogance of this government, if anything, has increased. It has increased since the election campaign. They were pretty darn arrogant after the last one and I suppose they had something to be arrogant about. They at least had two-thirds of the seats in this place and a majority of the Australian people behind them. They have now had all these unprecedented records achieved against them and their arrogance has actually increased. If ever there was a demonstration of complete mindlessness, that one is it.I wonder if an extraordinary record might not have been achieved last time if the Prime Minister had bothered to say to the Australian people that, as far as Senator Mal Colston was concerned, the undertakings he gave last year when he was trying to scuttle out from underneath the consequences of the government's inducements to Senator Colston to change sides in the Senate—which had been tumbled to by the Australian people; that piece of arrogance got them into trouble—were now inoperative. I wonder what would have happened if he had told them that these statements were now inoperative:What I am announcing this morning is a very clear message to the people of Australia that until this matter is cleared up we are not going to accept Senator Colston's vote.He went on:We won't accept his vote. Now if that means the government has a tougher time getting legislation through the Senate, so be it.If he had announced that he regarded those undertakings as inoperative—along with the rest of his standards—during the course of the election campaign, I wonder whether those extra few thousand votes, which made all the difference between a majority and a minority in this House, might not have been there. I think they might have been there if that latest piece of chicanery and arrogance had been presented to the Australian people before the election rather than after it.The government was so confident in the value of what it had to say about the GST that it concealed its campaign behind a plethora of sporting events for four weeks, allowing a degree of public focus for about one week only. It is of passing interest that in the one state, Western Australia, where sporting interest declined dramatically—as a Western Australian, I know and share the sentiment of fellow Western Australians that if a Western Australian team is not in it we are not interested in the national competition—they actually focused on the details of the tax package for four weeks instead of one. As a result, there was a seven per cent swing against the government and a dramatic reversal in their political fortunes. This is the state in which there is traditionally the lowest social base in Australia for the Labor Party. Forty-eight per cent of the folk who live in Melbourne and Sydney come from a bluecollar background. That figure in Western Australia is 23 per cent. For the Labor Party to be polling—in two-party preferred terms, after a four week analysis of the GST rather than a one week analysis of the GST—over 50 per cent after the floggings we have taken in Western Australia over the years was truly remarkable and reflected the one piece of detailed analysis of a particular tax package that had been put forward.I do notice a certain amount of embarrassment on the part of the Treasurer about that election campaign. In the same way as the GST was Banquo's ghost at the feast during the election campaign, the Treasurer had a walk-on cameo role as the court jester. It was a pathetic campaign that led many of us to suspect that the Treasurer was deliberately seeking to distance himself from the Prime Minister. He was like a small boy in this campaign, as he tripped out across the road saying, `Aha, Labor Party figures'—whack, over he went on the banana skin as the electorate moved on. He staggered up and said, `No, no, I really do have something valuable to say, don't worry about it,' and raced around the corner after the electorate—whack, straight into a light pole he went as he got into a debate with the previous shadow treasury spokesman on this side of the House. He went under yet again and then disappeared to a purely court jester's role. It was a worthless contribution.Since then, he has been bullying and behaving like an arrogant buffoon as he has backslid on one position after another. His continuing demand that there be no realistic inquiry into his tax package does not display confidence in the figures. I do not know what set of figures he has tabled in this place, but I do know this: if a government does not bother tabling the figures before question time then you know those figures are not all that hot. That is a standard rule of thumb. Everybody ought to know that. It applies to any government, us included. If a government does not bother tabling something before question time, you know they have got some doubts.And well they might have some doubts, because they cannot escape certain evaluations as far as this GST is concerned. We are going to have a great deal to say about the GST in the future. We are going to have a great deal to say about its efficiency as a tax, the fact that it is now routinely evaded in Europe, and that it is seen as an old-fashioned and ineffective way of sustaining the tax base of a government. What we are going to have in the two major taxes of this country is interlocking evasion, as you have between the VATs and income tax system in Europe. You are going to have interlocking evasion here.But, unlike Europe, where there are all sorts of social insurance schemes that are complied with, we are going to have the basic taxation system of this nation non-complied with after these particular propositions are through. We will be saying a bit about that as it proceeds, but not here. What we are going to do here is just discuss a couple of elements of it—that is, the basic unfairness of it.There is no question that pensioners in this country were deceived, deeply and deliberately, by the government in its compensation package. The government knows full well this: if the CPI adjustments associated with the pension do not bring the pension to 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings, ever since the Labor Party was in office—and it has continued under them—there is an automatic adjustment of the pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. They know that; they know that fully. But did they adjust their compensation package to make the GST component compensation a package that went in place with a separate layer to that automatic 25 per cent adjustment? No, they did not. By not doing so, they placed pensioners in this country in this position: the government's own budget papers show that they would have enjoyed, in the year 2000, when this comes into place, on the government's own figuring—budgeting allowed for it—$340 effectively in compensation for the year. They will get $400. Every full pensioner understands that it is $1.15 a week compensation for the GST.That is just one low income group betrayed by this government. The second is the rest of the community. We now go to the government's own figures: not any figures they have concealed; figures they have released. That was their assessment. The normal income position of a family in this country is to be earning a bit over $30,000, with a number of kids. The government demonstrated, from their own figures—not from household expenditure surveys or anything else, but from their own figures—a 30c a week per child compensation arrangement.There is not a single family in this country who does not comprehend what that means. The government has cobbled together all their extraordinary calculations, based on a CPI adjustment with harvesters in it, so that pensioners and others can look at the machinery/equipment element of the CPI and acquire something like that. When they do their shopping, if they buy, along with the apples and pears, a combine harvester, they are sweet. They'll be right; there won't be any problem there. They will come out of that looking pretty good. But if all that they do is buy apples and pears and have a haircut while they are down there, they are dog meat as far as this situation is concerned, having regard to the calculations that are made of the situation in which they find themselves after the government's confessed package is put into place.The point is this: the vast bulk of Australian families, if the government is right, will now just stagger over the line on compensation. This does not apply to me, to anyone in this chamber, to the Treasurer or to any of the people whom the Treasurer spends most of his time with. There is, for high income earners, substantial compensation. Every member of this House can be confident that they will be adequately compensated for the introduction of a GST. But, for an ordinary working Australian family on average weekly earnings, they know this: they might just be compensated, but they will not be when that GST rises and they will not be if the government's calculation of a 1.9 per cent price effect is wrong. They will not be, in any case, if they are actually living in a normal Australian family. They will find themselves now carrying all the tax burden in this country—the income tax burden and the tax burden that comes from the implementation of the GST.In these circumstances, I think that you are obliged to let the Australian people have a closer look at it. I think your arrogant triumphalism is out of place. I think your systematic misleading of the Australian people ought to be deprecated. I think your unwillingness to engage in a debate except under a smokescreen over your tax package is a pretty fair indication of just how fair you think it is. (Time expired)15:34:00131Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—One of the tragedies of that speech—and I think as people look back on it they will see that the Leader of the Opposition himself was embarrassed to give it—was that it essentially amounted to a speech on why he should have won the election rather than the government. It was essentially the speech that he was giving on the stump throughout the campaign—a speech against the government's tax reform proposal. It showed no understanding that he actually did not win the election, that his arguments were not actually accepted by the people. In fact, the speech that he intended to give in this chamber this afternoon was a speech based on the household expenditure survey which, according to him, would show, from Treasury documents, that the price effect, under the household expenditure survey, of the government's tax package was 9.5 per cent. After all, that was what was said in the advertisement that he had been putting in the papers.Notwithstanding the attempt to move away from that today and say, `We weren't alleging that it was the Treasury that actually had papers showing this; we were only alleging that it was somebody else,' the fact is that, in every newspaper in Australia, on the day before the election, the ALP had full page advertisements. Those advertisements did not say that the Melbourne Institute had said that there was a 9.5 per cent price effect under the household expenditure survey; they did not say that the Australian Labor Party, Joe Blow, Kim Beazley or NATSEM had said it. The effect of those advertisements was, quite clearly, to try to show that the government's own figures would say that there was a 9.5 per cent effect under the household expenditure survey from the government's tax policy. They said, `Treasury papers show.'They took an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, rearranged the paragraphs to try to make out that that was the case, and then ran the headline `Secret government figures'. It was not a matter of saying it was the Melbourne Institute, Kim Beazley, Simon Crean or the dirty tricks department of the ALP showing this. They said, `Secret government figures show GST will cost you five times more than Howard admits.'We come into this parliament today and produce household expenditure survey material. Does this material show a price effect of 9.5 per cent, 8.5 per cent, 7.5 per cent or 6.5 per cent? No. If you wanted to rely on it—and we do not—what it actually showed is that the all-household price effect under the household expenditure survey of the government's tax package was 1.8 per cent. If you wanted to rely on it, you would rely upon it as a confirmation, as the government had said, that the CPI was the proper measure. But you do not have to take our word for the CPI measure.As I said earlier—and I think this is an important point for the backbenchers, the new members in this parliament—this Labor Party is totally different from the Labor Party that was in government. When Labor was in government, you had people who thought about economic policy. The member for Kingston knows that. You had your Willises, you had your Dawkinses and you had your Keatings, people who were interested in economic policy. Now, of course, the Labor Party has slipped into the hands of the populists who do not think about economic policy, who are prepared to try to rely on a house hold expenditure survey when every Labor thinker had said that it was not reliable.The member for Werriwa, Mr Latham, would know this. The member for Werriwa is engaged in an experiment to see whether there is room for an economic thinker in the modern Labor Party. The reason he sits on the back bench is to see whether it is possible for somebody to have a capacity to grapple with these issues, to contribute to public debate and to remain in the Labor Party. He cannot sit on the front bench. As an empirical experiment, the member for Werriwa has proved there is no room for a serious economic thinker on the front bench, but he now engages in the experiment as to whether it is possible to do so from the back bench.The member for Werriwa would have enough interest to have gone back and to have seen what the Labor Party, when it last thought about economic policy, said about these sorts of issues, when John Dawkins had come into this parliament and said that the household expenditure survey was not the proper statistical basis on which to measure the price impact of tax changes. He actually tabled a Treasury paper in this parliament in March 1992. I want to read it because I think that the press gallery ought to know, when the Labor Party thought about economic policy, the position they took on these issues. The Treasury said, in the minute to the then Treasurer, John Dawkins, in paragraph 18 of appendix 3, on the limitations of the modelling of distributional impacts:It is clear that the HES sample does not accurately reflect the Australian policy in respect of the household characteristics needed to impute changes in income tax and transfer payments to particular household types. This has two implications. HES cannot be used to either cost the effect of any changes in income tax arrangements or government transfer payments—which is precisely what this was—or to calculate how many households are affected by a particular change. Second, the income for particular household types calculated from HES is subject to significant uncertainty.19. The problems with HES income data reflect the nature and coverage of the HES sample, as well as significant reporting problems in respect of particular income types. For example, it seems that the self-employed typically understate their income in HES.20. These characteristics of the HES mean that any attempt to impute income changes to particular household types on the basis of the HES data is likely to involve substantial error.I repeat `is likely to involve substantial error'. That is the advice that was given to Dawkins. That is what Dawkins reported to the parliament in March 1992. I go back to the document:An alternative approach, adopted in the 1985 draft white paper, is to consider hypothetical households described by level and source of income prior to the tax changes and then calculate the effect of proposed tax and transfer payment changes on the income of each hypothetical household.That is the way the Treasury did it in 1985. It is the way the Treasury did it in 1992 and—surprise, surprise—it was the way the Treasury did it in 1998. When the Labor Party was in government, it said it was right to do it that way in 1985. When the Labor Party was in government, it said it was right to do it that way in 1992. And when the Labor Party is in opposition in 1998, it says, `All of the ways we did it, all of the advice of the Treasury to us in government was wrong. It should be done on a totally different basis.'What changed was not the economic analysis, that did not change; what changed was the Labor Party. As I said earlier, in 1985 and even in 1992, the Labor Party prided itself on having a serious policy debate, a serious interest in economic issues. Now you have this ragtag, populist group of people who think of no substantive economic issue or no substantive policy, who cannot cope with debate on significant issues. And so they engage in the mindless populism that you have seen from the former trade union leadership which now seems to have such a hegemony in the ALP. As one commentator said in today's Bulletin:The Labor leader . . . grabbed tax credits as a gimmick to stack up against the Coalition's tax reform package. The 5% unemployment target was another gimmick presented in isolation. Those critics who claim the opposition leader is not interested in serious policy development need look no further for justification.Mr Wilton interjecting—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—It was Laurie Oakes in today's Bulletin . Let me read that sentence again: `Those critics who claim the opposition leader is not interested in serious policy development need look no further for justification.' What was the serious policy that the Australian Labor Party put before the people in relation to tax at the last election? Ungrandfathering pre-1985 assets from the capital gains tax! Your main tax policy in the last election was to ungrandfather pre-1985 assets from the capital gains tax, and a week after the election we learn, `That was a bad policy. We no longer stand for that.' I say, at least you had one policy during the election. Now we are down to nought. The only policy they thought up in three years of opposition got dumped two weeks after the election.What if you had been elected? If you had been elected on that policy, you would now be seeking to introduce something that you now acknowledge was a failed and wrong policy for the Australian economy. So what does the Labor Party now say to the public? `Thank heavens you did not elect us because our policy was a bad one.' The public saved themselves from the Labor Party by voting the Labor Party out. That is the proposition. It is just not serious policy analysis.We went through an election when we put before the Australian people the most detailed tax reform package. We explained it day in, day out. We got a mandate in relation to it, but here we have, on the second day of parliament, the opposition leader giving his election speech as to why he opposes the policy.Australia has to move on. We need a new tax system. Over the last week, I have been reading a book about the civil rights movement in the United States. It tells how Governor George Wallace went down to, I think, the University of Alabama and said, as he was standing in the schoolhouse door, `Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.' And here is Beazley, standing in the parliamentary door, saying, `WST today, WST tomorrow, WST forever.'The Leader of the Opposition is fighting for a tax that was introduced in the 1930s when we did not know about a service based econ omy, when we did not know about a value added tax, when we did not have computers, when we did not have faxes and when we did not have accounting systems. We had an economy which was closed and based on goods. In the 1930s, with that kind of an economy, they at least were able to stand up and say, `We will look at a tax system which will give us an indirect tax base.'But, in the 1930s, were they envisaging the year 2000? Were they envisaging a servicebased economy in a global setting with an international financial system where capital flowed across borders, where you were in tax competition with other countries, where you had people competing for skills, knowledge and talents and where you were facing a disadvantage in relation to high corporate and income tax rates? Could they have envisaged that? No. Was it their view that the 1930s tax system should apply to that kind of country? No. They thought that the leaders of the day would have the capacity to build for tomorrow.That is what this government is doing. But here we have Kim Beazley standing in the parliamentary door and fighting for the wholesale sales tax: `WST today, WST tomorrow, WST forever. We cannot advance on the tax system of the 1930s. Let us close our ears to the policy debate. Let us put the member for Werriwa on the back bench. Let us engage in telling the people what they want to hear.'It was said—and I thought so aptly—that if you want to look at those critics who claim the opposition leader is not interested in serious policy development then look no further for justification. It might have worked during the first term when you could run a populist line telling people that you do not need to cope with the modern era, that you do not need to renovate a 1930s tax. It might have worked to keep the leadership intact in the first term, but it is the mind-set of permanent oppositionism. It is not the mind-set that is thinking about government; it is not the mind-set that is thinking about what we need to do to improve the country; it was not the mind-set of John Dawkins when he was analysing tax matters; it was not the mind-set of Mr Keating when he was Treasurer when, with the support of Kim Beazley, he was recommending a GST to the Australian people. It was the thinking behind the 1985 white paper when there were people in the Labor Party who were prepared to think.I exempt the member for Melbourne from some of these comments because I know he wants to think but is not allowed to. He was only allowed to publish his book after the election because he was not allowed to tell the truth before it. The member for Werriwa was that much braver because he was allowed to publish his book before the election.I say to the opposition that today's MPI has been based on a false premise. It has been based on something that you rejected. Unfortunately for you, even when you do so, it turns not to favour you or your analysis. The Leader of the Opposition's MPI is a flop because it is a rehash of a campaign speech which shows no advance in thinking. It indicates a paucity of thought and policy and the predominance of populism in an opposition now going into mindless oppositionism—a place where they will stay if they are unable to do serious policy thinking. (Time expired)15:49:00134Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We have just heard from the Treasurer, who was hidden during the election and who has been running like mad ever since. He is a Treasurer who cannot quite make up his mind whether he really wants a GST. If it goes down, it is John Howard's fault; if it gets up, it is to the Treasurer's credit.Have you watched him, Mr Deputy Speaker? Did you see how he positioned himself during the election campaign? In the campaign, Niki Savva teed up all those media interviews for him. There was a constant theme: he was the man who could not lose. He was the man who would be opposition leader if Labor won or the man who would be leader in waiting if the government won. Do you remember those interviews? Well done, Niki! But it did not impress his backbench colleagues, and that is why some 19 of his colleagues are not here now.This government went to an election advocating their strategy, their vision for the nation over the next three years, as being what? They advocated a new tax—not a commitment to employment, not a commitment to economic growth. There was no clue about what was happening in the Asian economy. The Treasurer was saying things like, `It is a passing phase; it won't last long.' We had the crisis happening around us, but he was out there trying to pretend it was not happening.Mr Deputy Speaker, this was not his first gaffe. What about when he divulged the secret dealings with Alan Greenspan which echoed around the world? This is a Treasurer with no measure and with no vision.The truth of the matter is that this GST is an unfair tax, and that is why we are opposed to it. Try as you might, you cannot make it fair. The reason for that is it is a regressive tax. It applies the same rate to everything that people purchase, regardless of their income. On our side of the House we know that those people with different incomes and different households have different expenditure patterns. We know that poor people in the community spend more on housing than rich people. We know that poor people spend more on fuel and power as a proportion of their income than rich people. They spend more on food, they spend more on clothing and they spend more on medical care.As a proportion of their income—and understand this too about poor people and middle income people—they do not save. Everything they earn they spend. And some dissave. They have to find, scratch for and grab every means by which they are actually spending more than they earn. So changing a taxation base from income to expenditure is unfair, because it broadens the base or hits the same base—it is no different. That is the case if you assume that they only spend what they earn. If they spend more than they earn, you are taxing then on a wider base.The second thing it does is tax them at a flat rate, regardless of the level of the income. That is why a GST is unfair. It is also the case that the GST will make no exemptions. Everything will be taxed. Under the system that we had in place, we did have indirect taxes. But there were different rates for those indirect taxes and we excluded the necessities of life. We were not in there taxing basic food, clothing, most building materials and basic services such as electricity, because we know that taxing the necessities of life hits the lower and middle income earners harder.This is the point that this government is only beginning to get the message about. It is the reason it lost the seats it did in the last election. It is the reason why it is here with a 12-seat majority but only by 3,500 votes across this nation. This is a government that might have been able to scrape in defending a GST in this election but will not win a second election on it, because people will come to understand how unfair it is.We know it, because we went through this exercise in 1985. We were prepared to look at a broadbased consumption tax in 1985, and we ruled it out. But we still got taxation reform. We still fundamentally reformed the taxation system in 1985. How? By changing the approach to direct taxation. We introduced a withholding tax. We introduced the fringe benefits tax. We introduced the capital gains tax. And we actually made the point that it was unfair that people who were in a position to convert income into capital could avoid taxation. So we do believe in making the system fairer, but you will not make it fairer by the introduction of a GST. And that is what we want to demonstrate. Significantly, we made an important demonstration of that effect in the last election. Of course, we didn't win—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—You lost.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—But we got 51½ per cent of the vote in an election that your Prime Minister said was a referendum on the GST. I heard the Treasurer the other day saying that the people have spoken on the GST. Eight million people voted. The trouble is that more than four million voted against it, you fool. Don't you understand the message that is coming at you?The other point is that we want to demonstrate how you cannot make this tax fair. And that is why we want the inquiry process through the parliament. This government has sought to avoid scrutiny at every turn. Since last week the Treasurer has been crowing about the documentation that has been tabled today. And what does he do? He slips it in two-thirds of the way down question time. It is a package which, until now, people have said contained 11 documents. Well, I had a quick look at the table of reference, and there are 12. But the truth of it is that if you read the Sydney Morning Herald today Mr Cleary's article says that there are in fact 17 documents. Hence my question to the Treasurer: will he release all of the documents? Do you remember that he would not answer? That is what we want from him. This is a person that must make full disclosure, because full disclosure was not made during the election campaign.It is not only the Treasurer seeking to position himself for leadership of the party, whenever that might come, who withheld information during the election campaign; it was also the Prime Minister. Again in question time today in my question I reminded the Prime Minister of his quotes:We were up-front, we were open, we were honest, we didn't hide anything.But Mr Vos was appointed by the Prime Minister to do a 17-day inquiry into the GST and report by Friday of this week—and everyone ridiculed it as being inadequate timing, including Mr Vos himself. Mr Vos today said:Not all of the policy of the government has been revealed.Here you have the Prime Minister saying, `I am Honest John. I've been open. I've put everything out there.' The fact of the matter is that they have not. This is a government that will try and avoid scrutiny, but we will make sure they get that scrutiny. That is why we will persist with the inquiry process.This cocky Treasurer, who was here earlier, has already had to back down three times. The few people on the government side who remain in the House—there are two that I can count—ought to take this into account. When is he going to realise that he cannot win this argument and avoid the inquiry? We said that the business tax review needed more time for consideration. Costello says, `No, finish in time.' Two weeks ago, they gave it a three-month extension. That was the first back down. Then he says, `We are not going to release the household expenditure survey.' Last week he says, `We will release it.' But what we appear to have is the sanitised version—something like five documents at least missing.We have also had the Treasurer today trying to say that Labor, when it was a government, did not rely upon the household expenditure survey. That is absolute rubbish. We used the household expenditure survey in 1985 in our modelling to demonstrate the unfairness because of the impact on different households. I was part of the tax summit, and I know. It is also true that in those days in 1992 Treasury used the household expenditure survey to attack Fightback. The criticism that Mr Dawkins levelled at the opposition's package was the extent to which they tried to dissect the household expenditure survey into two smaller groups, such that it became irrelevant. Dawkins was not saying there was no relevance for the household expenditure survey. We want an inquiry, and we will persist until we get it. (Time expired)16:00:00136Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—In the spirit of this week, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on their unelected succession to the leadership of the party. I also take this opportunity to reflect that we now have two sons of two Whitlam government ministers who are leading the Labor Party. It is, in fact, emblematic of the struggle that is now going on for the soul of the Labor Party that when they look to an icon of economic management they completely pass over the Hawke-Keating years, the years when they actually reformed the economy, and look back to the Whitlam government. It is hard to imagine how the shadow Treasurer would not have been thinking, when he was running around old Parliament House, `One day I would like to run the economy like dear old dad'. He would have, as an emblem, the former member for Melbourne Ports, his father, who was Treasurer in the Whitlam government.We have also seen that new Labor is old Labor rebadged. In fact, it is a return to an even older Labor in that it has returned to all the politics of envy that characterise 1970s Whitlam-style Labor. We need to say, `What is the firm principle that the ALP stands for? What is the defining principle?' It is that the ALP is against the GST. That means that what it is in favour of is income tax and the wholesale sales tax.When the ALP left government, they left us with the equivalent of an 8.1 per cent GST. So where is the overriding principle in the Labor Party which says that somehow wholesale sales tax is fair but GST is unfair? Let's face it, the ALP are acting from no higher principle here. In fact, there is a curious thing that goes on. When you look back to 1993, you find that Bob Hogg was running the Labor campaign against the GST. He now crops up in 1998 running a campaign for the GST. Gary Johns, a former minister in the Keating government, who was elected on a platform to oppose the GST, now says that tax reform is essential and any right-minded government would consider it. We now know, from Paul Kelly's book on politics in the 1980s—The End of Certainty—that the only people who supported Keating in cabinet on the 12½ per cent consumption tax were Bob Hawke, Susan Ryan, Kim Beazley and Gareth Evans.The shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who did oppose it at the tax summit, was not totally pure either because we know from John Edwards' biography of Paul Keating that Crean and Kelty agreed with the Treasurer's diagnosis and felt there was no way to go other than a broadbased consumption tax. What was Labor like in government? We know that in 1985 they went to the tax summit.The matter of public importance that we are debating concerns the impact on low income earners of a GST. As you know, the government is offering generous compensation. As the indications show from the household expenditure survey and the CPI, people are being overcompensated. So I think it is fair to say, `What did Labor do when they were in government?'In 1985, without having raised an election campaign, what they did was broaden the base. They increased the tax on biscuits, ice cream and savouries. How much compensation did they give then? In 1993 they went to an election opposing a GST. In the subsequent budget they increased the wholesale sales tax from 10 per cent to 12 per cent; 20 per cent to 22 per cent and 30 per cent to 32 per cent. What compensation was given then? None.In 1995, they increased the wholesale sales tax on cars from 15 to 22 per cent. What compensation was given then for low income earners? None. When they increased the excise on petrol, alcohol and tobacco, what compensation was given then? None. They even tried to broaden the base, which is the sort of thing that a GST does. They tried to broaden the base by including household building materials, which was knocked off in the Senate.In 1996, due to the changes that they made in that period—1993-95—an extra $6 billion in indirect tax was raised than would otherwise have been raised. It was the equivalent of Fightback. There was no compensation. In fact, Neil Warren of ATAX has said it was Labor's Clayton's GST. It has no principle on this issue. I do not know what the Labor Party stands for. Its tax policy was a joke. Its employment policy was a joke. Getting unemployment down to five per cent is a good goal, but you cannot do it with the Labor Party's policies. In actual fact, in the system that Labor gave us, the only people who really win are lawyers with a big indirect tax practice.In a case recently in the Federal Court it was finally decided what the tax treatment of frozen yoghurt should be. This case had been going on for two or three years. It was very difficult. They had to look at the temperature of the yogurt. The problem was that food is exempt but. if frozen yoghurt is a substitute for ice-cream, it should be taxed at 12 per cent. Essentially, what they have found is that it is tax-free if it tastes like yoghurt but, if it tastes like ice-cream, a 12 per cent wholesales sales tax is applied. This is Labor's system. It is not a simple system. It is not an efficient system. It adds something like $4½ billion on exporters and $10½ billion on companies.The Labor Party have said that they oppose a GST but they want an inquiry anyway. In this country we have had many inquiries on tax. We had the Asprey committee in 1975; we had the tax summit in 1985; we had Fightback, which was released in November 1991 and debated for the 18 months leading up to the 1993 election; and we have the current debate on taxation which began in October 1996. It was joined by the government in May 1997. It went on for 18 months prior to the election and now the Labor Party say they want an inquiry on something they oppose anyway.We know where they stand. This is a failure of leadership by the ALP in that they oppose it but they still want to have an inquiry. What do the Labor Party stand for? What is their tax policy? They say that pre-1985 assets should be included in capital gains tax. So jewellery, wedding rings and so on, shares, beach shacks—anything that people have been holding in their family for maybe 60 years—will be subject to capital gains tax.Their only attempt on the indirect tax side was to exempt tomato juice and orange juice from wholesale sales tax and to include caviar and aircraft. The sorts of tax exemptions they left us with give us things like sinks taxed at 12 per cent, but the pipe leading to the sink is exempt. Engagement rings are taxed at 32 per cent but wedding rings are exempt. Aircraft are tax exempt, but TVs, radios and cameras are taxed at 32 per cent. Pet food is at 22 per cent, but if you go and get it from the butcher it is exempt. In 1998 we still exempt horseshoes and horseshoe nails. We exempt scoured wool. We exempt food for non-domestic birds. That is the Labor Party's tax system! In terms of compensation, we are giving $2 billion in family payments and $13 billion in income tax cuts, and all government benefits will be increased by four per cent or 1½ per cent ahead of the price effect of the GST.Labor has talked about the unfairness of the GST. I wonder whether Labor actually knows how much extra the GST raises above the indirect taxes that are already raised. It is 0.7 per cent of GDP; it is about $3½ billion extra. Just in compensation alone to people who are receiving government benefits we are giving $3 billion. That does not include the $13 billion in income tax cuts; it does not include the $2 billion in family tax payments.The income tax scales that we have introduced are more progressive than the ones we inherited from the ALP. Under our scales, people on the top 20 per cent of incomes will pay more of the burden of income tax and people on the lower 20 per cent will pay less of the burden of income tax. The low income earners will also have the tax-free threshold increased from $5,400 to $6,000. Single income families, including single parent families, with a child under five will have a tax-free threshold of $13,000. The marginal tax rates will be reduced for everyone below $75,000, which is twice average weekly earnings.There is also a 30 per cent rebate benefit for private health insurance and that will benefit all Australians with private health insurance, especially the one million Australians on incomes of $20,000 or below who are still holding their private health insurance; and they can get it as a tax rebate or a cash payment. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The discussion is concluded.Address in Reply138138Debate resumed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Before I call the honourable member for Bass, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.16:10:00138O'Byrne, MichelleMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP01—In my first speech in this place I would like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as the traditional owners of the region of Canberra.I rise to speak today with an acute awareness of the responsibility that is being placed upon me. I am the 11th person to represent Bass since 1903 and only the second woman. The people of Bass have given me both the honour and the responsibility of following in the steps of one of Australia's greatest politicians, the Hon. Lance Barnard. Lance Barnard set me a very high standard. He was one of Australia's most famous sons and one of our most eminent politicians. We feel his passing very deeply. Lance set a benchmark. He was never too busy for his constituents and he made sure he always had time. He fought tirelessly in Canberra for what another great Australian, Gough Whitlam, refers to as `Lance's beloved Bass'. That is the standard against which I shall be measured. It is the standard of representation that the people of Bass both expect and deserve.Another great Australian, the late Senator Justin O'Byrne also represented northern Tasmania in the other place. Justin O'Byrne delivered his first speech in 1947. In that fine speech he argued for the basic rights of individuals. He said:Only when we have courage, foresight, and a cause that is just can we successfully embark on a policy that will ensure that all decent people who work with their hands and brains at least the means of earning a livelihood and having sufficient food, clothing and shelter—a right which every citizen of a country such as ours should inherit.He went on to say that `the workers of this country . . . are entitled to social security' and he argued that there was a need for a program to `improve the national health'. These are the very values that Labor fought for in the last election. I find myself bringing not only the name of O'Byrne back to this parliament but with it those very goals and values articulated so very many years ago.It is ironic that another O'Byrne should stand in this parliament when the fight for such basic values and human rights causes is just as necessary, if not more so. The last election was fought on many issues but none more important than job security and the provision of essential community services such as health care and education.Sixteen months of knocking on doors prior to the election gave me a clear view of the needs and aspirations of the people of Bass. Many were of the view that the Howard government had failed them and they voted accordingly. I also found many people becoming more involved in their communities as the effect of the first Howard government on their daily lives became apparent. I spoke to one young woman who had been a Labor support er for many years. She told me she had a strong commitment to social justice and equity. She had only just, however, made the decision to join the Labor Party and she did so because she said that by not working to stop the increasing level of racism and individualism in our country, by remaining silent, she was as much to blame for the problems as those who created them. She was right. It is not enough to believe that we must have a better society, a more tolerant, equitable and supportive society; we must be part of its creation. That has always been the task of the Labor Party and it is the task of the people on this side for the next three years.Billy Bragg, a British contemporary musician, summed it up when he said `Wearing badges is not enough in days like these'. As I looked around the House at the swearing in yesterday, it was quite satisfying to see the number of women representatives. But we still have a long way to go before this room is truly representative of the community. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony wrote:No class of citizens, either men or women, can ever feel a proper self respect or command the respect of others, until their political equality—their citizenship be fully recognised.I reiterate the point made by my colleague the member for Gellibrand. As long as women are viewed in this place as something unusual, then we have a very long way to go.Whilst we may claim that no barriers exist to young women entering this place, it is not so. We must always remember that a perceived barrier is just as effective as a real one. Women have a vital role to play in government, and I look forward to when I can look around this chamber and see it reflect our community's make-up.As a young woman I am particularly pleased to be here, and I must take the time to thank just some of those women who have given me such support over the last few years: Lara Giddings, Fran Bladel, Joan Kirner, Cheryl Kernot, Jenny Macklin, all of the members of the excellent organisation Emily's List and all of the Tasmanian members of the Australian Labor Party Sisterhood. The admission of so many young women can only enhance the opportunities for other young women seeking political or boardroom careers.My decision to pursue a political career was influenced by my upbringing and the environments in which I lived, the values instilled in me by my parents and the opportunity to contribute to the development of a better community.The Bass electorate is in north-east Tasmania. It is centred on the city of Launceston and the larger towns of George Town and Scottsdale. The region boasts a diverse economic base with considerable potential, but this potential has been squandered by the fiscal vandalism of the Howard government. As a consequence, Bass suffers from one of the highest unemployment levels in the country. We are also suffering from a declining population for the first time since the Second World War.Both the major parties took special Tasmanian policies into the federal campaign. Labor's package represented our view of what is needed to get the state back on its feet. It was based on extensive consultation with the electorate and considerable debate within our party room. It was a plan that offered the write-off of $150 million in state debt, owed to the Commonwealth, with no strings attached. Labor proposed the establishment of a Tasmanian economic opportunity office to implement an economic recovery strategy for the state. This was to be done in cooperation with regional leaders, local government, community groups and prominent business people.Labor was also committed to building Tasmania's infrastructure, and importantly for both domestic and business telecommunications users, Labor planned to introduce a single local untimed call zone for the state. We also committed an incoming Labor government to securing the future of both the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme by enshrining both schemes in legislation.The Liberal package represented their view of the world. The key features were the introduction of a new tax on all goods and services and the sale of the rest of Telstra. Mr Howard also offered to forgive the state the $150 million owed to Canberra, but on the condition that we sold the Hydro. The sale of the Hydro was a key policy of the Liberal Party in the state election. The polls at the time suggested that nearly 80 per cent of the electorate were opposed to the sale, and the Liberals paid the political price.The 1998 federal campaign in our state was built around these issues and, in my view, it was fairly contested. I note that this was also the view of my opponent and the informed view of the people of Tasmania who gave Labor a clean sweep of seats in the House of Representatives. The voters in Tasmania expressed a view, through the ballot box, that the blanket policies implemented by the Howard government in its first term did not work in regional Australia. Tasmania needs a comprehensive regional development plan. We need targeted assistance and creative policies to develop the talents of our people and exploit our natural economic advantages.I will campaign for such policies for the next three years. I will continue my fight for the establishment of a marine hydrodynamics facility at the world-class Australian Maritime College. I will continue to pressure the government to assist in the establishment of a flight training school and development of Launceston as an aviation centre. Northern Tasmania, with its natural resources, needs a comprehensive ecotourism strategy. Launceston desperately needs the replacement of our Family Law Court judge—a 1996 coalition election promise that we are still waiting for.It is no secret that Tasmania's economy is in trouble. That is why it is vital the federal government match Labor's no-strings commitment to write off $150 million of state debt. The Howard government must also set about rebuilding the public infrastructure lost to the north-east since March 1996. The Bass electorate is entitled to easy access to the Australian Taxation Office. We are entitled to have access to comprehensive employment services. In fact, given the high level of unemployment and the depressingly high youth unemployment levels, such services should have been given the highest priority.The Howard government is well placed to make a direct contribution to job security in Bass by maintaining and improving government services to the community. It is also well placed to ensure that both Telstra and Australia Post meet their community service obligations. Bass and Tasmania are already experiencing the diminution of Telstra services after the loss of almost 400 full-time jobs. Telstra have recently announced further cuts to staff in Tasmania, including another 20 in Bass. This government must start having an active commitment to jobs and job security.I am fortunate to have as part of my electorate a productive and innovative rural community. In recent times, any advances in rural Australia have come in spite of government rather than as a consequence of government action. Governments ask rural industries to work hard; in fact, governments tell them how much their contribution to the economic wellbeing of the community is valued. But in recent times governments have withdrawn a range of important services from those communities in the name of good economic management. Governments at both the state and Commonwealth level have cut services in recent years with devastating effects.It must be recognised by this and all governments that all Australians have a right to receive a certain level of service and access to adequate public infrastructure wherever we live. We know that the provision of services is more expensive in some areas than in others but, as an inclusive, supportive and forward thinking nation, governments must accept that cost. We must ensure that we do not abandon anyone.One area in particular in which rural communities must become a priority is the provision of new and emerging communications systems. The Internet is supposed to bring the world closer together, yet only 30 per cent of Australians are so far connected. We must ensure that regional communities have equal access to modern communications systems. Effective communications will underpin our future. Businesses in regional Australia will only survive if they can be part of this new system. We must not allow a new divide to arise between the information rich and the information poor.Australia is a society that defines people by what they do, whether or not they have a job and the nature of the work they do. As a result of this, many people in our community have become marginalised. We must actively and with great urgency seek out inventive and targeted ways to address issues such as youth and middle-age unemployment, and we must continue to build up skill levels and self-esteem to enhance both individual job satisfaction and productivity.I have in my electorate the Beacon Foundation. This not-for-profit foundation is the pioneer of the `No Dole' program. The Beacon Foundation works with Brooks High School to help young people identify viable alternatives to the unemployment queue. Students, Brooks High School, the education department, the foundation and local businesses have embarked on a highly successful targeted program. As a result, not one student who left in 1997 did so without a plan for the future. Every single student went on to higher education, work or work training.This example shows that successes are possible if we think laterally, think targeted and work hard. But we must also recognise the growing issue of older unemployed people. We must take the responsibility and provide for those people of 40-plus, often blue-collar workers, who have worked their whole lives, have been made redundant, and are now abandoned. We must not allow our workers to be commodities in the labour market. Purpose and respect makes for good workers; hope and inclusion makes for good communities.When I joined the union movement with the then Miscellaneous Workers Union, it was because I believed that we all had the right to certain conditions. I also recognised that, while award conditions at that time were deemed absolute rights, they were always at risk while the ideological views of the Right prevailed—a view which attacks basic conditions of workers. It is interesting that this view appears to be more commonly held by those who have probably never had to raise a family on a minimum wage.The people I represented were not highly paid. They were cleaners, ground-keepers and school attendants. Their needs were simple. All they wanted was the entitlements they were due: a safe working environment and a decent day's pay—things which many people in this chamber probably take for granted.Let me assure you that those basic rights are always at risk, never more so than under the vicious attacks of this government. That is why we need institutions and systems to provide protection. We need an effective Industrial Relations Commission to provide an independent arbiter for workers. It is not easy to fight for your rights when you can be sacked on the spot for no good reason, but that is how the Howard government would like it to be.We also need organisations that ensure that people's rights, concerns and aspirations are effectively communicated to the government. Community groups play a vital role in coordinating the energies and interests of many people. They are the engine by which communities form their future. The Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition was such an organisation. It represented the interests of a broad range of young people. This group criticised government policy in relation to the Youth Allowance. The Howard government responded by cutting its funding. The Pensioners and Superannuants Federation suffered a similar fate when it objected to the government's nursing home policy.I have a large task ahead of me. It is one of the most important in the country, and one to which I am wholly committed. But I need to acknowledge those people who make this commitment possible. I have had incredible support from my family: from my wonderful parents who instilled in me the principle of social equity that I hold dear and which frames my life. They believe, quite rightly, that women can do anything. I have had support from my brothers, Michael and David, who have supported and challenged me through my life and who were never bound by the `conventions of diplomacy'. I have had support from my partner Priam who has put his own career on hold to help me achieve my goals. I also thank my family, friends and volunteers who made my election possible. When you win a seat by only 78 votes then everyone who has helped you has made a difference. I wish to extend my thanks to the members of the parliamentary Labor Party, and to thank Suzie Rogers and the staff of the Bass Electoral Office for the professional manner in which they dealt with the re-count. I wish to thank those people who placed their confidence in me by voting for Labor. Let me assure those who did not choose to vote for me that I will work very hard on their behalf.Finally, let me say that the voters of Tasmania have made their position clear to this government by electing federal Labor members to all the federal seats only weeks after electing a Labor state government. They do not want an unfair taxation regime placed on them. They do not want to continually sell public assets. They want a government which will listen to their specific needs, and they want good regional representation. I am honoured to be here representing the people of Bass. My commitment is to be a representative of the calibre of Lance Barnard and Justin O'Byrne. If I do only half as well as they did then I will be serving my electorate well.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Hear, hear!16:26:00142Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Whilst I hope that the member for Bass loses some of her ideas, I hope she never loses her idealism. It is something to be admired.It is a privilege to speak to the address-inreply for a number of reasons—firstly, because of the high esteem in which I hold the incumbent Governor-General; secondly, it is a privilege to be a member of a government which is embarking upon an economic and industrial relations reform program that is as difficult as it is necessary; thirdly, it is a privilege to speak at a time when our country is changing, when much that is so familiar is leaving us; finally, but not least, it is a privilege to be able to again represent the people in the electorate of Bradfield in the federal parliament. That is something that I should not nor will never take for granted.Australia is a different country today from what it was three years ago, but we are also different today from what we were prior to 3 October when the tide of economic and social change sweeping the nation was threatened not only by the return of a Labor government but much more so by the symbolism and substance of a prospective One Nation electoral success.Nations, like people—like any of us—face moments of truth. They are periods in our lives when we wonder whether we are going to survive. I believe that Australia has been through just such a period that has challenged our economic, social and political survival. But it is also one, like all moments of truth, that will redefine our values. How we are led over the next three years will determine whether we emerge a stronger, more resilient people. Ambivalent equivocation on the issues that were set out by the Governor-General yesterday will do this nation lasting damage. Whatever occurs in this parliament, we are being propelled into what is in many ways an uncertain future.One of my constituents—and one of the problems with this job is that people cease at times to be human beings and become constituents—sent me a book last year authored by the German physicist and philosopher Bernhard Philberth. The book is about change and it is called Revelation. He said:Progress leads to chaos if it is not anchored in tradition. Tradition becomes rigid if it does not prepare the way for progress. But a perverted traditionalism and a misguided progressivism propel each other toward a deadly excess, hardly leaving any ground between them.That is precisely what has been happening. We have had some people in political life who, for questionable ends, have sought to distort the traditional values upon which the nation has been founded, and then we have had another section of society which wants to change, seemingly for its own sake—whether that is economic change, constitutional change or anything else.Unless we people who profess to lead are able to instil in Philberth's traditionalists the importance of and the need for change and give them an understanding of why change is so necessary, and unless we are able to bring progressivists to a respect for and understand ing of our past, then we may well be a people who will be done lasting damage by what we currently are going through.Whatever the good things it had done, particularly, I believe, in its first two terms, the previous Hawke-Keating Labor government failed Australia in two ways. The first was that it spent more than we earned and it used debt and asset sales to prop up consumption and to finance essential social infrastructure. Apart from exposing us to constant exchange rate depreciations and giving us an intractable balance of payments problem so that every time we got near four per cent growth the Reserve Bank had to increase interest rates to stop money being borrowed from offshore, it created an unsustainable expectation of what governments can and will provide. It related to a second failing, some of which we have actually just heard. That is that we became in many ways a very selfish people. People in my generation especially seem to have become far more concerned about rights than responsibilities, the value of things has become more important than values and we are much more concerned about what happens to us today or tomorrow than what sort of country we will be 10 or 20 years from now.At the same time, another section of the electorate that was questioning globalisation, competition policy, multiculturalism and minority specific spending programs found their concerns ignored, patronised and trivialised by a Prime Minister in the form of Mr Keating who seemed more concerned with the republic, Berlin's architecture or Australia's place in Asia. Our past colliding with our future gave birth to Pauline Hanson.Mrs Hanson is, and was in this parliament, like many Australians. If they held a mirror to themselves, they would say, `She talks like me, she thinks like me, she says a lot of things with which I would agree.' Mrs Hanson has been a lightning rod for grief and anger that many Australians feel about changes in our country they neither understand nor want. But the issues that were raised by One Nation go to the very heart of the challenges that lie ahead of us in this parliament and will determine the kind of country that we will become. Those issues are why, despite impropriety and waste, do we do anything at all for Aboriginal people? What is so unique about the conditions under which these people seek to live that contemporary governments establish specific programs for them and to meet their needs? Similarly, in relation to immigration, the real question is why we run an immigration program at all, and for whose benefit it runs, and how we decide how many people should live in our country.Mrs Hanson and her party said that we should stop sending money overseas in the form of foreign aid, particularly while we had 8½ per cent of Australians unemployed. Again, the real question is: do we want to become a country in which we give money to the poorest people in the world despite having significant problems in our own country? Why is it important that human beings can always be measured in terms of the care, concern and compassion that they show to those whose needs are greater than their own? Mr Oldfield, who had become the alternative spokesman for One Nation, said on two occasions at least that we should not contribute to the United Nations, that for Australia the UN was a one-way trip, that it was all give and no take. Again, the real point is that surely we want to be a country where we contribute, whatever our own problems, to the humanitarian and peacekeeping work of the UN, and that we are grateful if we live in a country that is not in need of its services. In the same way as you give to the Salvation Army or World Vision or any other charity when they knock on the door, you do not say to them, `I am not getting anything out of it this year. I am not going to give you anything.'Similarly, the pain and the hand wringing about trade protection really go to the heart of what sort of country we want to become. We have 0.6 per cent of world population, one per cent of world trade and 6 per cent of APEC. At the end of the Second World War there were 100 segmented markets throughout the world, as Tony Blair told the Trade Union Congress in September last year. Now we are coalescing to three major trading blocs. When BHP announces that it is going to close its steelworks or its collieries, when Berlei and other companies announce that they are going to relocate into Asia, when citrus growers are ploughing trees back into the ground or we see Canadian pork hitting our markets or timber workers who are unemployed because of some of the intransigence—and lack of interest, I might add—of the previous Labor government, that is our economic and cultural past leaving us. It hurts; it bloody hurts.Those industries will continue to be a very important part of this country's economic and social future, but our future lies in other areas. In 1960 we expended 11 per cent of GDP generating 15 per cent of the nation's export wealth. That is the way we pay our way in the world. By 1997 we consumed 20 per cent of our GDP to generate 20 per cent of our wealth. As the Financial Review said last week, that is a losing formula. We have increased the volume of resources, commodities and primary industry exports but, while volume has increased, income has declined because prices have fallen.In the past decade many of my constituents and many on the other side have quite rightly bemoaned what they see as contraction in Australia's manufacturing sector—three per cent contraction in 10 years. There has been a 50 per cent reduction in employment in electricity and gas and a 10 per cent reduction in employment in mining, but a 90 per cent increase in employment in the communications sector, a 50 per cent increase in transport, 20 per cent in retail trade and 100 per cent in tourism.In areas like education, last year we generated $3.4 billion for our nation in educating foreign students and we generated $2 billion in income from information technology and communications. The pharmaceutical industry—which, by the way, is often the subject of derision and ridicule—last year generated $1.4 billion in exports for Australia and was a positive contributor to GDP growth. That is twice what was generated by the wine industry, whose achievements are rightly celebrated.The point is that my children are much more likely to be working in industries like that than to be digging coal out of the ground in collieries in Australia. Our future lies in knowledge based industries—biotechnology, health, education, multimedia, information technology and emerging industries. I say this to all the idealists who come into the parliament—and I hope that I remain in that category myself—but particularly to those of the Labor side: you cannot have it both ways. You cannot live in a country with two per cent underlying growth and say, on the one hand, `We won't have industrial relations, waterfront, energy, technology, transport, communications or taxation reform,' but on the other, `I do want a fully funded education system, a free public hospital system, everyone to get a nursing home bed when they need it irrespective of income, and everyone to get a pension.' You cannot have it both ways. That is the reality we face in contemporary Australia and in this parliament.Tax goes to the heart of that. Unless we simplify our tax system we are not going to be able to create more wealth which we can then spend on those whose needs are perhaps greater than those of some of us in this House. Unless we broaden the base it will be impossible to fund essential social infrastructure into the future. The retirement incomes modelling task force report for the National Commission of Audit that was published in July 1997 says that in 1996 dollars we will have to spend, including pensions, $38 billion on the health and welfare costs of ageing above and beyond real growth from where we are currently over the next 40 years just to provide the same level of services that we provide now. That is more than the drain that occurred on the Australian economy during the banana republic crisis in the mid-1980s.The other problem that we have, whether we want to accept it or not, is that we are trying to compete with the rest of the world and we saddle those people who are trying to manufacture and export from Australia with wholesale sales tax and business transactions taxes which have almost a five per cent impost by the time their goods hit the international market. That is not a market where you can simply jack up your price to offset input costs. Another significant thing we are going to need to consider in this parliament is the whole debate about unemployment, which I believe is inherently dishonest. During the federal election campaign, the Labor Party said—I think admirably—as it had before, that it wanted a five per cent unemployment rate. The only developed country in the world that has unemployment below five per cent—in fact, running at just under four per cent—is the US, where public utilities are fully privatised, the financial services sector is intensely competitive, the labour market is deregulated and the welfare system is thin. I am not for one minute suggesting we should be anything like them.The recent National Centre for Vocational Education Research report on youth employment showed that the number of jobs for 15- to 19-year-olds has fallen by 10 per cent to 586,000 over the past decade. The number of full-time jobs for young people has dropped by 47 per cent in the last 10 years.If we are going to be serious about unemployment we have to have a debate about the things which are potentially politically embarrassing to all of us but which need to be discussed. It is the way the labour market is regulated, as the government has made its intentions clear that it will continue to do; it is the way the education system relates to the labour market; the social security system; the way we tax ourselves, which the government has set for itself in this term; and the way we finance public housing. I do not know if you have ever noticed it, but most people who are unemployed all live together in the one spot. I spent nearly nine years as a medical practitioner servicing a public housing estate and I can tell you that the way we finance the provision of housing for unemployed people contributes to maintaining their unemployment.We also need to have a discussion about the recent Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research proposal from Professor Peter Dawkins and his four economic colleagues following on the work of Dobelle and Vickery from the Reserve—which is that a real reduction in the rate of growth of minimum wages will contribute to a growth in employment.It is almost as if many Australians, believing that they will not lose their job or if they do they will get another job, are saying in all sorts of ways, `We would rather pay the social security cost of having 8½ per cent unemployment than embrace the real and indeed difficult policy decisions that need to be made if we want to get unemployment down.' Most Australians in their hearts know that, if we continue to prescribe the policy prescriptions that we are, we will, particularly if we can reform the tax system, make inroads into unemployment. But it is difficult to envisage unemployment getting below five per cent. Perhaps we need to look at some alternative policy options.One of the other critical things that we need to be looking at is not whether Australia is a republic—whatever the importance of that issue. The real question is: how do we best govern ourselves as a federation in a world that is quite different from what it was 100 years ago? There is the nature of Commonwealth-state relations and the number of politicians we have in a desperately overgoverned country. There is the length of terms that are served by governments. Federal governments govern for about 15 months and then they have one eye on the polls—and what is popular is not always right. There is the structure of this parliament. Whilst I opposed almost every policy prescription put forward by One Nation, I ask myself how one million people can vote for a party and there is no-one here actually representing their views. In one sense I am very grateful about that, but in another I ask whether we should actually have a look at some of these real issues.When John Glenn made his first trip into space, his then United States President, John Kennedy, identified the real struggles for his generation as being against tyranny, disease, poverty and war. The question is: what are ours? What are our dreams? If we ignore dreams we do so at our peril because within them lies hope.I pass this on to new members: I have learnt a lot; I have a lot more to learn. One of the best pieces of advice I was given after my preselection in 1995 was from the Western Australian Premier Richard Court. He said, `You are there only once. The saddest thing you will ever see is a politician who served his or her time and then left regretting that they did not say or do what they had the opportunity and the responsibility to do when they knew it to be right.'The British historian, Kenneth Clark, in the BBC television series Civilisation, having reviewed civilisations long past, concluded that, whatever its complexity, civilisation is fragile. Do you know what he nominated as its greatest threat? He said:It is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusionment just as effectively as by bombs.To me, what is perhaps most important is that we need to articulate ourselves using words that are both attractive and understandable in terms of what we are trying to create. What kind of nation do we want to become? What are the principles and values upon which it will be based? Then we will understand the strategic policy framework that is required to deliver that outcome. Surely we want to become a country where we value the health and integrity of human life as much as we do achieving our economic objectives; where we nurture the idealism of young people; where everyone feels that their views are both solicited and heard; where every person knows that they will be cared for but, in return, that they are expected to make a contribution to the society from which they derive a benefit; and where we strive to become outward looking, competitive and compassionate, imbued with the values of hard work, self-sacrifice, tolerance and courage. (Time expired)16:46:00146Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be back in this chamber as the member for Northern Territory. I want to make some observations about my time out of this place, since 1996. I will be speaking to the honourable gentleman at the table—the Minister for Defence—at some future date about the inadequacies of the defence policy of the government. I will not do it this afternoon, but he can be sure that he will hear from me.I was defeated at the election in 1996 and I left after that election and made a commitment to my friends who had supported me in the electorate and within the Labor Party that I would recontest and win the seat back for the Labor Party at this last election. I spent 2½ years in a campaign to win the seat back for Labor—and I did so. I have to say that it came as a surprise to the conservative side of politics because they did not expect me to win. I won by dint of the support I was able to achieve throughout the community based on my own performance but, more importantly, on the performance of many people within the community.Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, this is not my first speech. I gave my first address to this parliament on 17 September 1987. I will allude to that first speech because some of the issues that I raised in it are still relevant today. It saddens me that they are so relevant.I was given the opportunity to speak today by my party colleagues because my family flew down from the Northern Territory for this happy occasion of my swearing in. I notice they have just ambled into the visitors gallery—a little late but, nevertheless, they are here. I would like to acknowledge their presence: Elizabeth and our four children, Frances, Tom, Tess and Jack; and our very good friend, Nyree Davis, who is accompanying us.Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have to tell you or members of this House how important family is in allowing you the opportunity to serve the Australian community. But I do not think people are generally aware of the sacrifice that families have to make for people who come from remote communities and have large electorates. The size of the Northern Territory electorate is about 1.3 million square kilometres. It is the largest electorate by population in Australia and geographically the most diverse. It includes both Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. During my previous period in the parliament, and particularly in the last six years, I was only home on average about six nights a month. I am not quite sure how we achieved it, but we were able to produce four children during that period. It may have been the magic of the communications systems that were available to us but, nevertheless, we now have a family of four children. I make the point that, without the support and love of the family, in this case Elizabeth and the kids, I could not have achieved the success that I have achieved at this recent election. I want to thank them for it.I also want to thank those people in the electorate who obviously voted for me and the Northern Territory community generally. I note, in travelling around the Territory since the election, that there is somewhat of a relief as though a pall has been taken off the community. They realise now that there is someone back in the job who will do the work they have elected me to do. Sadly, that was not the case with my predecessor. I will not dwell on that, but the fact of the matter is that it is very important that, when representing a large and diverse electorate like the Northern Territory, you actually work hard and try to represent the interests of everyone and not just a select few. That is what I will endeavour to do.I want to make some observations about the election campaign. Out of it I want to draw your attention to a couple of issues that I made known in the course of my initial speech in this place in 1987, which are still current issues and which became important in the context of the election campaign. The first of those is the issue of statehood. During my 1987 address I spoke about the issue of statehood and the importance of it to the Northern Territory. I said at that time that, if the Northern Territory were to achieve statehood, `It must be done with the support of all sections of the community.'I would have thought that was a fairly simple observation. I am absolutely amazed that the Northern Territory government, under the chief ministership of Shane Stone, should put to the Northern Territory community a double-barrelled question at a referendum. It asked: `Since we have now had a constitutional convention and the legislative assembly has drafted a constitution, do you think we should now become a state?' That double-barrelled question caused people to react badly against the Northern Territory government. There is no doubt that the Northern Territory community wanted to become a state but they did not want to be hung with the constitution drafted by the CLP government. They did not want to be hung by a constitution that came out of a constitutional convention orchestrated by the Northern Territory government and that represented only two per cent of the population.Yet Shane Stone, in his wisdom, wrote to the Prime Minister with his double-barrelled question saying, `This is a question I propose to ask in a referendum in the Northern Territory. Do you approve of it?' The Prime Minister said yes. Does that make him as silly as Shane Stone? What it does do is show how inept they are at gauging what the community feeling is and what it has been in the Northern Territory, because there is absolutely no doubt in the world that there is widespread support for the Northern Territory becoming a state—absolutely no doubt about it.In the course of the election campaign our leader, Kim Beazley, came to the Northern Territory and very clearly articulated the Labor Party position. He said the Labor Party position on statehood is very simple. There will be, under Labor, a constitutional convention which is democratically elected, based on the principles of proportional representation. Out of that constitutional convention will come a process to draft a constitution. And that constitutional convention will determine the way ahead to achieve statehood, including the question of negotiations with the federal government.I would have thought any reasonable person would have said that this approach, which has been drafted by Kim Beazley, is something which the whole community could support. It deserves bipartisan support. But was that to be the case, Mr Deputy Speaker? Not on your nelly. Shane Stone persisted with his malevolent attack on the ideas and opinions of the community of the Northern Territory with the way in which he drafted this constitutional convention question and then put it to the people of the Northern Territory. During the campaign, he had the gall to say, `If you don't like the constitution, don't vote for the referendum. Don't vote yes.'The Northern Territory community took him at his word. They said, `We won't vote for it because we don't like the constitution. We won't vote for it because we don't like the process which you have imposed upon us. We won't vote for it because we don't like the fact that you haven't consulted with us and negotiated this with us as you properly should.' There was universal opposition within the Aboriginal community. I go back to my original statement of September 1987 in my first speech in this place. I repeat it:If statehood is to be achieved in the Northern Territory it must be done with the support of all sections of the community.It is a simple proposition which should be easy to achieve but, with the current Northern Territory government, it is highly unlikely.I hope that we get statehood back on the federal agenda in this parliament. I will be driving for it on the basis of the policy propositions put forward by Kim Beazley prior to the election. That is, that there should be an elected constitutional convention using the principles of proportional representation which will determine how the constitution itself will be developed and the way ahead. I know that that will have the support of the community. I wonder if it will have the support of this government, because if an approach like that does not have the support of this government there is next to no hope of statehood being achieved in the Northern Territory.We have already heard what the Democrats and the Independent Senator Harradine have said about the process thus far. There is no way in the world that a process which deviates markedly from my proposal will be accepted or agreed to by this parliament. It may be agreed to by Mr Howard, but it will not be agreed to by this parliament. What we have to understand is that statehood will not be achieved by a deal between John Howard and Shane Stone. Statehood will only be achieved with the support of the Northern Territory community and the support of this parliament. The other issue which I raised in the context of my address in 1987 was the question of reconciliation. I want to raise it here this afternoon because it is totally appropriate to this election. In 1987 I said:The year 1988 provides this nation with a unique opportunity to seek a reconciliation with Aboriginal Australians and recognise their calls for justice.I would have thought, again, that was something which we as a community would have said is an objective we can all achieve.The Labor government then instituted a whole host of initiatives designed to bring that process of reconciliation forward, including the appointment of a chair of the Council of Reconciliation in Pat Dodson, a dear friend of mine and godfather to our eldest child, Frances. His brother, Mick, coincidentally, another good friend of mine, has a godchild in our youngest son. These people made a massive contribution to the debate about reconciliation and advanced it properly—as it should have been.You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that one of the issues which arose during the context of this debate was the stolen children. We have only very recently had the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, say that there is no way on earth that this government will apologise for the fact of the stolen children. I could understand it, perhaps, if it was something which happened aeons ago. I could understand it, perhaps, if it was something which happened a generation ago. But I cannot understand it, because John Howard was a member of a government at the time this practice was still taking place. He is as guilty as I am, as an adult Australian, for this process.Let it be said here: he personally may not be guilty, but the fact that that policy was taking place was a product of decisions of governments and the failure of this parliament—this parliament—to act properly in the interests of all Australians and in the interests, particularly, of indigenous Australians. I would have thought that if you understood that basic concept, the product of the 1967 referendum, you would have said that this parliament is the proper institution to apolo gise to indigenous Australians for this practice which was, of itself, genocidal.We have to ask the question of this Prime Minister: do you have a genuine desire for reconciliation? I fear the answer is no. We then only have to look at the track record of the current Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to understand why that answer is no.In the past few months and, indeed, in the past few weeks, he has attacked the Aboriginal leadership of this country, he has vilified Aboriginal affairs' policies, and he has supported an approach by the Deputy Prime Minister on the issue of Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory.Mr Deputy Speaker, I have lived in the Northern Territory since 1975 and every election since 1975, territory and federal, has involved the issue of race. It has involved the issue of race because the conservative political parties of this nation—in this case in the Northern Territory and, more lately, the federal parties—have seen some electoral advantage in dividing the community on the basis of race, subtly sometimes and arrogantly subtly at other times.In this instance the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Fischer, marched into the Northern Territory, romper stomper style, and put out a press release on 28 September in relation to the Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory.You need to understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that these organisations represent the interests of Aboriginal people on issues to do with land in the Northern Territory. Their representation is based on statute—a law passed by this parliament in 1976—which gives them responsibilities and functions which they must fulfil. One of them is to properly represent the interests of Aboriginal people in relation to land matters. The Deputy Prime Minister of this country, in the middle of an election campaign, marched into the Northern Territory and said these things:The NLC based in Darwin and the CLC based in Alice Springs have become giant, bureaucratic, bloodsucking councils, which take away from smaller communities resources and flexible infra structure and leadership in such places like Alcoota, North East of Alice Springs.He continued:I am not satisfied with the structure of land councils. I think there is scope for smaller land councils more directly related to smaller communities and getting the job done on health, education and the like. I make no apologies for that.Not only did he make an intervention which is ultimately racist—for which he later apologised after the election—but what he also did was get the facts wrong. He could not even get the story right. If he had understood the basic concept of a land council and what they do, he would have understood that they have absolutely no responsibility for health, education and other community services. These are rightly the responsibility of government and this parliament.I ask the question: why is it that the Prime Minister later supported the statements by the Deputy Prime Minister? How could he do that? It got the exact reaction he wanted from Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. They said, `You are wrong.'Senator Herron then came through the electorate parading the issue of breaking up the land council structures. The CLC candidate, the incumbent, went to the community saying, `If you want a smaller land council, vote for Nick Dondas.' Well, they voted for Nick Dondas—20 per cent of them. The result of the vote in the Northern Territory in relation to Aboriginal issues was that 80 per cent of communities outside the metropolitan areas voted for me, voted for the ALP. They rejected absolutely the divisive approach of Tim Fischer. They rejected absolutely the divisive approach of John Herron. They rejected absolutely the approach of Shane Stone on the issue of statehood and that of John Howard on the issue of Aboriginal affairs. They rejected that, yet we have still got the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs parading around the countryside as if they had not, bemoaning the fact that Aboriginal people do not support him.Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude on what, to me, is a sombre note. I want to pay tribute to a great Australian. I want to pay tribute to an Australian for whom, 12 months ago in two or three days time, there was a service at St Marys Cathedral in Sydney. I speak of Nugget Coombs. Nugget was a great friend of my family and me, and a truly great Australian. I want to quote from the eulogy given that day by Pat Dodson. It epitomises, to me, what this country should be about. It epitomises, to me, what reconciliation is and what leadership should be. I quote:Nugget had a great belief in the future of this country. He gave to Australia all his intelligence, energy, compassion and love. He dedicated his whole life to building the nation. And the last decades of his long life he dedicated to the Aboriginal people.The big thing he understood was that recognising the rights of indigenous Australians and justice for indigenous Australians were essential to the future of this country, essential to the future of non-indigenous Australians.He knew such injustice couldn't be ignored—not without damaging consequences to the whole democracy, to the whole notion that Australia was truly a fair and just society, to the whole white Australian legend of the fair go.This is what Nugget understood and old age couldn't stop him living by that understanding and fighting for what he knew was right.Nugget had a world view and a vision for what Australia could and should be.Nugget had a special interest in the position of indigenous peoples within the world community. He concerned himself with all the social, economic and environmental issues confronting humanity.He was, for example, particularly aware of the difficulties facing women and children, especially those who were abused or disadvantaged by social and political systems.He was always critical of economic rationalism—when the world is so wide and complex how could anyone interpret it so narrowly?Mr Deputy Speaker, my time is running out. I quote these words:He was concerned that the creed of "profits at all costs" was undermining democracy and increasing inequality—re-creating a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, a world he had dedicated his life to eradicating.`There are,' he wrote, `. . . serious questions of how far all governments . . . may become. . .I conclude by quoting these words:If the sage guide the people he must serve with humility. That is from Lao Tsu, quoted in Trial Balance , one of Nugget's books. (Time expired)17:06:00150Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on Armistice Day 1998, the 80th anniversary of the end of World War I. I pay tribute to an ABC journalist, Chris Masters, for the report which was screened last Monday night on Four Corners . It was a report called `Brothers in Arms', which looked in great depth and detail at the service of Australia in Europe and Gallipoli in World War I.I would like to also compliment the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the production of the particular little book I am holding at the moment which is called Beaucoup Australiens Ici. The full quote is `Fini Retreat, Madam; Beaucoup Australiens ici'—`No more retreat, Madam; Many Australians are here.'This book was launched at the War Memorial last night. It is about Australians' participation in France in World War I and is to do with the travelling exhibition which opened at the War Memorial last night and will be there until 16 March, 1999. The exhibition is then going to Queensland. I encourage everybody who has the opportunity to have a look at Beaucoup Australiens Ici, which is available from the War Memorial at a cost of $5 and is well worth it. It is an excellent publication and every Australian would be proud to have it.I would also like to say that Beaucoup Australiens Ici—Many Australians are here—is as true today as it was in 1918. What I am referring to are some of the 60,000 Australian young men who lost their lives in World War I, and they are still there. I would like to again mention the Belgian town of Ieper which has a remarkable record in acknowledging the contribution not only of Australian troops but also of other allies. Of course, the Menin Gate in Ieper is famous as it has the names inscribed on it of over 60,000 allied soldiers who lost their lives but whose bodies were never found. One of the most moving experiences you can have is to be at the Menin Gate at 8 o'clock at night because the citizens of Ieper have a Last Post Associa tion and every night at 8 o'clock they play the last post.The Menin Gate is a very large memorial. A road runs through it and precisely at 8 o'clock the gendarmes close the road and the buglers step forward. On the first occasion I was there, there were between 800 and 1,000 people present. It is a very moving experience, particularly if you happen to be standing where my wife and I were standing, looking at the names of some of the 6,176 Australians recorded on the walls of that memorial. Over 6,000 young Australians lost their lives, but their bodies were never found.I would like to remind the House that on Armistice Day last year, at the invitation of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Menin Gate buglers were here in Canberra and played the last post at the memorial service at the War Memorial.While I am talking on this line, I would like to pay a tribute to the RSL and what it does to support the veterans of this country and in particular to the RSL subbranches in the electorate of Cowper. They range from Woolgoolga in the north down to Kempsey in the lower Macleay in the south. I have mentioned the people associated with those subbranches on other occasions when I have spoken to the House, but on this occasion I would like to mention one person in particular—Patricia Furbank, who is the president of the Macksville subbranch of the RSL. She became president in 1996. One of the reasons why I particularly want to mention Pat Furbank is not only because of the wonderful job which does as president of the RSL subbranch but because of her contribution to Australia and the fact that, as has been mentioned already today, we do not have a national memorial to nurses.Patricia Furbank was in the Royal Australian Air Force Nursing Service. She served in Australia, then went to Butterworth in Malaysia and was involved in aeromedical evacuation missions from Vietnam through to Australia. She was later attached to the United States Air Force, specialising in aeromedical evacuation with Squadron 902 based in the Philippines at Clark base. Along with other nursing personnel, she carried out a vast number of aeromedical evacuation tasks from Vietnam, Japan, Korea and through to the United States. It is worth noting that at one stage she received an imperial honour, Associate of the Red Cross. She is so typical of those wonderful women who were in the nursing service in all Australian conflicts.We should remember that Australian nurses were present supporting our troops at the first Boer War. As I only found out today, they had to pay their own way to get there, which shows incredible dedication. There is a national appeal for a national nurses memorial to be built in Canberra to honour and acknowledge the service of these wonderful women. It is a $2 million appeal. The federal government has put in $100,000 and I would like to suggest to all Australians that we all contribute something so that there should be proper recognition of those people.I would like to mention a rather sour note about the recognition of our contribution in World War I. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training Board of Studies is apparently removing World War I from compulsory study. They are going to start modern history courses in 1937 and they are removing World War I because it is `too Eurocentric'. I cannot accept that. If you look at World War I and Australia's contribution in Gallipoli and on the Western Front, this is a basic icon of Australian society. I think that it is essential that this must be continued.I acknowledge that the New South Wales Premier, Bob Carr, has said that he is going to intervene in this. I hope that he continues to do that because World War I study is going to be downgraded. More time is to be provided for the study of personalities and histories of so-called national liberators: Ho Chi Minh, Nehru—I have no great quibble with them—but Fidel Castro and even Winnie Mandela who has been implicated in terrorism and in 18 murders. I think that it would be a great mistake to walk away from the inclusion of study for all of our students on what has been achieved by Australians in our formative years. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training must rethink that proposition.I cannot speak in this first debate of the 39th Parliament without some reference to the election and, of course, I must take this opportunity of thanking the people of Cowper for re-electing me; I am certainly very grateful and thankful to them. Of course, there is no point in hiding the result: I went down a bit; it was less than in 1996. But, of course, that was expected because the swing against the Labor government in 1996 was so massive. But, to put it in perspective, compared with 1993, my vote was still about 2½ or three per cent higher than in 1993.I have to acknowledge the support of so many wonderful people in the electorate who assisted and supported me. None of us, no matter who we are in this place, get here by ourselves. I would like to acknowledge the support of those very many people, members of the National Party and so many others who were not members of the National Party, who gave me their utmost support. It is appropriate that I should mention the long-term support of my wife, Suzanne. I think I see the member for Batman at the table, nodding. We all need that support from our spouses or partners; it would be very difficult to do the job without that.I have also got to acknowledge the wonderful support of my staff. My chief of staff, Pamela Langford, has been with me since 2 January 1985—bearing in mind I was elected on 1 December—and has provided tremendous support, as have Diane Leahy and Bethany Langford, who are my other two staff members. Over the years there have been others who have also worked their tails off for the benefit of the electorate.People must realise that, while members of parliament naturally get involved in politics—that is what it is all about—our major concern has to be for our electorates; it has to be for the benefit of Australia. I freely acknowledge, as I always have done since I have been in this place, that, while I may think those on the other side are misguided and they think I am wrong, I know of no person in this parliament who is not here to do their best for Australia. Anybody who does not acknowledge that is pretty foolish. We may disagree, but everybody here is trying to do their best. As I said, I think those on the other side are misguided and they think that I am wrong, too.There were so many people who volunteered that it is invidious to name only one, but I have to name Mrs Glynne Tosh, who is the chairman of my electorate council and also my campaign director, who made a tremendous contribution to the campaign. She lives at Dorrigo and, within days of the campaign being called, she had left home and poor Angus Tosh became an election widower; she moved into Coffs Harbour and worked full time on the campaign until it was well and truly over. I am just so very lucky, as so many other members are with the support they receive from people like Glynne Tosh.One point I would like to make about the election is that, in many ways, this was the most aggro election that I have ever encountered. I must say that I was very disappointed at the number of calls to my office where people just abused my staff in the most violent and disgusting way. There was no word in the lexicon they did not use and that my staff were not accused of being. I think it is most unfortunate that people should take that action and not understand that the people who work in electorate offices are there to serve the people. That is what they do. I also make the point that, in the nearly 14 years that I have been the member for Cowper, not one person who has called at that office or phoned has ever been asked what their political allegiances are because I, as the member, and my staff, as my support, are there to serve everybody in the electorate. That should be made very clear to everybody.I must thank the Prime Minister for the $12 million from the Federation Fund that is going into my electorate to create a national marine research institute at Coffs Harbour. I am delighted about that. It is going to benefit not only Coffs Harbour but the whole of the mid-North Coast and, indeed, all of Australia. One of the substantial and significant reasons why we are having that is that Coffs Harbour is the meeting place of the tropical waters and the temperate waters, so that you have access immediately to virtually all species of both marine and temperate waters, and that is very important.The University of New England and the Southern Cross University have been involved from the start. There will be a company formed and they will be administering the marine research institute. I pay particular tribute to Professor Rod Simpson from UNE and Professor Harry Hyland from Southern Cross, as they had the charter to drive it forward in concert with me, and we are very pleased that we have been successful. I cannot let this go by without also mentioning Hec Goodall of the Coffs Harbour Pet Porpoise Pool. While we did not get enough money to do something about the relocation and expansion of that facility, we had nothing but strong support from Hec and everybody associated with him.There is an enormous potential for this marine research institute, not only for undergraduate and postgraduate students. We expect to have a lot of people from overseas and, down the track, I expect that we will eventually have some form of consultancy, research and industrial services. I am particularly interested in seeing it develop something in the way of marine environmental monitoring in the Pacific, South-East Asia and even the Timor Sea.I must say that I was privileged last Friday week to be in Aberdeen in Scotland where I had meetings with Dr John Davies, the Deputy Director and head of the environment team of the marine laboratory there, with Mr John Morrison, the Ship Manager, and also with Dr Alastair Alexander, the Chief Executive of the University of Aberdeen Research and Industrial Services Ltd, which provides all sorts of funding, help, incubator facilities and other very exiting developments.I was also very pleased that I had the opportunity to have two meetings with Scottish Enterprise, because the two people I have met are in Perth at the moment and will be in the Northern Territory next week. I see that Darwin has the opportunity of becoming very prominent as an operations centre for the Timor Sea development. Most of us in Australia at this stage do not realise the potential that is going to flow to Australia from that massive development in the Timor Sea. Aberdeen, which I have mentioned, is relevant, because that has been the focal point for all of the North Sea development. I just hope that Darwin and the Northern Territory in general will be able to capitalise on this, because it is essential in this development that we have local input. We can and need to learn an enormous amount from what happened in the North Sea development and in Aberdeen itself.I want to make two comments on Aboriginal affairs. Members who have been here in previous parliaments will know that I have hardly ever stopped speaking about otitis media, glue ear. I will just refresh the memories of longer serving members by pointing that in the Macleay Valley in my electorate 94 per cent of all Aboriginal kids between the ages of three and six suffer from glue ear, which means they cannot hear, which means they cannot learn and therefore they are typecast as being stupid and unable to be taught. That is something I have been trying to focus attention on throughout Australia in the whole time I have been here.I am very pleased to have found—again while I was in Scotland—that there is pioneering laser surgery now available that can very quickly treat children suffering from glue ear. They can be cured in an outpatients department in a tenth of a second with only a local anaesthetic. Ear specialists believe that laser surgery will also reduce the cost of long-term antibiotic treatment used to fight glue ear. It is true to say that fluid drainage and relief from pain are almost immediate and the middle ear stays ventilated for three to four weeks, giving the underlying infection time to clear. I commend this information to the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, because I believe we have to make a concerted attack on otitis media, which is not just in my electorate but in Aboriginal communities right around Australia. It is something we really have to tackle.The other issue is, I regret to say, more negative. Again, it concerns Kempsey at the community of Greenhills. Houses that have been built out of taxpayers' money for the Aboriginal community have been wrecked, smashed and destroyed. I think that the Aboriginal community has to give more respect to the elders and that this vandalism, which destroys their own housing paid for out of taxpayers' money, has to stop. As I have continually said, we have to focus on health, housing and employment services. We have to do this, not necessarily because they are black, because they are Aboriginal, but because they are Australians in need. As a caring. compassionate society we need to care for anybody in need, regardless of race or colour.I also want to make a very brief reference to a young Chinese Australian who lives in Coffs Harbour. Zong Zhao has just finished fourth in the World Junior Chess Championships in the under 12 years of age division. This is the best result by an Australian since Ian Rogers, who is Australia's No. 1 player now, finished fourth in the world under-18s in 1977. Zong Zhao was mixing it with the top Russian chess people. He has an amazing future, and I wish him well and congratulate him.You would all be disappointed if I did not mention the Pacific Highway. This Howard-Fischer government has made the commitment to keep the funding going. I have approval and acceptance that the bypasses for Kempsey and Macksville are high on the priority of this government. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! Before I call the honourable member for Rankin, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies.17:26:00154Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP01—It is a great honour to stand here representing the residents of Rankin—playing a part in achieving their aspirations, offering them a helping hand and building a stronger community. For the opportunity to participate in this noble task I want to thank the residents of Rankin for placing their hope in me, for giving me a go.I will work with the Beattie government and local councils to help find solutions to the law and order problems in Logan City and in other parts of Rankin. I am quite sure that the lack of jobs and job security is at the heart of those law and order problems. That is why I will be giving such high priority to addressing the issue of jobs and job security. I will work tirelessly on my Jobs Plan for Logan to encourage the further development of small business in Logan and greater education and training opportunities at the Logan Institute of TAFE and at the Logan Campus of Griffith University.I will defend the rights of older Australians in Rankin to dignity and peace of mind. I will repay, as best I possibly can, the faith shown in me by Australians of ethnic origin, including the residents of Logan City from more than 100 homelands and the Chinese community in the southern suburbs of Brisbane.I thank the more than 200 ALP branch members and personal supporters who helped so enthusiastically during the election campaign. I extend a special thanks to members of the over-75s club who deserved a spell but who worked so hard for a Labor victory: Bill and Fran Burton, Jim and Mavis King, and Ted Warren. I thank Bob Hawke and Bill Ludwig for their loyal support and wise counsel. And I thank Ross Garnaut for his continued interest in my career and for the illuminating discussions we have had about public policy spanning almost 20 years.Thanks to the people of Baradine—where I grew up—for giving me the values of a country boy. I am delighted to be joined in this parliament by the new member for Lowe, who hails from nearby Dunedoo—another country boy who was forced to the big smoke in search of opportunity.Thanks to my brother, Lance, for your love. Lance, I am sure mum and dad would have been proud of us. I thank our children—Ben, Tom and Laura—for the joy they are bringing to us. And I want to express my love for my wife, Cathy, who has nurtured our family, stood resolutely in support of my aspirations at great personal sacrifice and who deserves to achieve her own goals and fulfilment with my total support.Mr Deputy Speaker, Western society is afflicted with an illness. It is an illness whose symptoms include rising levels of domestic violence, child abuse, youth suicide, drug abuse and, paradoxically, obesity and poverty. While material living standards have risen, anxiety, stress and despair pervade most societies in the Western world. We do not seem to be any happier than we were half a century ago when material living standards were a lot lower. Society is fracturing and parts are breaking off. Whole suburbs and towns are being left behind. Our sense of community is disintegrating as individuals and families struggle under great stress—no longer having the time and energy to build a stronger community.Mr Deputy Speaker, this sombre assessment of the health of Western society does not mean that we must, as parliamentarians, be pessimistic. But it does mean we have a heavy responsibility to identify the cause of this sickness in our society and to find remedies for it. Over the past half century or so, democratic capitalist societies have been locked into conflict with oppressed totalitarian regimes. Capitalism has pretty well triumphed at the closing of the 20th century, with communism all but dismantled. Capitalism has proven superior in yielding higher material living standards and greater freedoms.At this stage of human development, self-interest remains the strongest motivator of human endeavour. By encouraging the pursuit of individual self-interest, capitalism has yielded wonderful technological advances that have unquestionably raised material living standards for billions of people. Just as we can marvel at the power of a rampant bull, so we can marvel at the power of unfettered markets. But just like the rampant bull, unfettered markets can unleash enormously destructive forces. And, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is what is happening in Western society, including in Australia.Astonishing technological advances in transport, communications and information over the past couple of decades mean that low-skilled workers in Australia are competing daily for work with low-skilled workers from other Western nations and the heavily populated developing world. The pace of change in information technology—which shows no signs of abating—may render Australia's semiskilled workers of today the low-skilled workers of tomorrow, tomorrow's unemployed.Mr Deputy Speaker, unemployment and the fear of unemployment are destroying Australian society. The loss of job opportunities and job security is at the heart of the afflictions in Australian society to which I have referred. The loss of self-esteem and feelings of rejection by society created by unemployment cause normal people to lash out against society and, tragically, even against their own partners, themselves and their children.Resentment turns into hostility when ordinary Australians, insecure in their jobs, watch the conspicuous consumption of the fabulously wealthy while struggling to earn the income needed to pay for decent education and health care for their families. Australians are desperately searching for solutions to this sickness in our society. They yearn for jobs and job security.Around one million Australians embraced Pauline Hanson, who enticed them with the illusion of jobs and job security in a fortress Australia protected by high tariff walls, and who disgracefully used Asian and indigenous Australians as scapegoats for unemployment. Australians in search of jobs and job security looked to the Prime Minister for leadership. Instead, they are getting a $30 billion jobdestroying GST—an even heavier burden of taxation on their shoulders so that the Prime Minister can further lighten the load on the top 20 per cent of income earners in Australia.On the GST, today in the House the Treasurer made a remarkable observation—what he thought was a revelation. He said that the results of the household expenditure survey that he was releasing today showed a price effect that was almost the same as the consumer price index effect. One average and another average reflecting just about the same thing are going to produce the same number. Either he was deluding us, trying to mislead us, or he does not know what he is talking about.What we want to know is the impact of the GST on different income groups and, most particularly, the impact of the GST on pen sioners and low income earners—the people who cannot fend for themselves. We know, and they know in their hearts and in their minds, that those people are going to be a lot worse off under a GST. The people who turned to the Prime Minister for a solution to job insecurity and unemployment are getting a massive new tax burden. His own employment minister has admitted that the GST `is not the answer for unemployment'.Mr Deputy Speaker, more than half of Australians placed their faith in the Australian Labor Party to find a remedy to the sickness of unemployment and job insecurity. Unfortunately, they did not all live in exactly the right places, otherwise we would be making our maiden speeches from the other side of the chamber. There are remedies to the affliction of unemployment. We must not give up on the unemployed and we must not give up on people who are seeking job security. We must return some confidence about jobs and job security in Australia.In its 13 years in government, Labor laid the groundwork for sustained job creating growth and exceeded every job creation target it set for itself. The economic reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s have given Australia a far more productive and resilient economy. But those achievements are being squandered by a government obsessed with the ideology of unfettered markets and totally apathetic to the appalling social consequences of their free market dogma.Mr Deputy Speaker, the only political party in Australia committed to healing the unemployment sickness is the Australian Labor Party, whose political and industrial wings time and again during the federation's short history have combined to produce the policies and practices to build a stronger, fairer and more cohesive nation.Labor's plan for encouraging the transition from welfare to work, released during the election campaign—and I must say pilloried by big business, the coalition and Democrats—is the only serious political attempt in Australia to find a remedy to unemployment. The remedy to unemployment lies in the further development of policies to encourage economic growth, the transition from welfare to work and the continual lifting of the skills base of the Australian work force.Heavy criticism has been levelled during the 1990s at policies that are described as economically rational. If by economic rationalism we mean the ideologically obsessed slash and burn policies of the coalition, then I am against it. If by economic rationalism we mean the sale of Telstra, then I am against it. If by economic rationalism we mean the withdrawal of vital government services and cuts to education and health services, then I am against it. If by economic rationalism we mean the iniquitous nursing home fees and the GST, then I am against it. If by economic rationalism we mean so-called efficiencies in Centrelink from slashing 5,000 jobs so that clients must wait longer and longer for service, then I am against it.But that does not mean we should embrace economic irrationalism. One Nation and other national socialists have been the champions of economic irrationalism—tariff and financial policies that would impoverish Australian workers and destroy jobs on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.When I speak of economic rationalism I mean rational economic policies that increase a community's prosperity, its wealth. I mean policies that encourage economic growth not for the sake of economic growth but for the jobs and prosperity that are created in a growing economy. I mean policies that increase the national income that is then available for distribution to those in need, to the programs that achieve a fairer society, by providing access to an education for all, not just to the privileged, decent health care for all, not just to those who can afford to pay for it, and aged care and child care and support for families under stress.If our society is to recover from its sickness, politicians have a leadership role to play through the pursuit of policies that are economically rational, but in the way I have defined it, at the same time as being socially responsible.The coalition continue to pursue policies that are socially irresponsible. They seek market solutions with heartless human consequences. Their plan for unemployment is to cut the incomes of low paid workers and to burden them with the GST, and their plan for job security is to complete the destruction of the award system and the protections of the Industrial Relations Commission. In 1987 their leader described himself as `the most conservative leader the Liberal Party has ever had'. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my melancholy duty to advise you that he still holds that title.The remedy to the sickness of unemployment and job insecurity lies in harnessing the power of the market in the great Labor tradition of working with the trade union movement and business to produce prosperity and a just society. It lies in harnessing the rampant bull. It means encouraging economic growth in tandem with policies that distribute the benefits of growth fairly. It means nurturing the community and supporting those in need.It amazes me that Australians can find billions of dollars to build dams and highways but, when ministers seek a few million dollars to protect children from abuse and to help struggling families cope, the cries of `fiscal restraint' echo down the corridors of the treasuries of Australia. Around 70 per cent of prisoners were abused as children. It is vital we break the cycle of abuse through early support programs that help parents who are under great stress to cope better. Sometimes it seems treasuries will listen only if they are able to calculate that funding policies to support struggling families and protect children can lead to budget savings from needing fewer gaols. Personally, I think it is the decent thing to do anyway and we should not be continually obliged to justify socially responsible policies in terms of the budget bottom line.In the mid-1990s I convened a series of public forums to develop a vision for Australia for the year 2020 and to identify the measures needed to make that vision a reality. Speakers at the 2020 vision forums included Bob Hawke, Hugh MacKay, Ross Garnaut, Malcolm Turnbull, Cheryl Saunders, Wayne Goss, Dale Spender, Peter Garrett, Rick Farley and the present Minister for Health and Aged Care, who was then Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Emerging from the forums was a vision for Australia in the year 2020: it will be prosperous and self-confident in the world, imbued with a deep sense of fairness, understanding and enjoying a multicultural society, where indigenous and non-indigenous cultures are reconciled, respecting its senior citizens as wise elders, with continuing natural splendour and free of oppression and the spectre of war.I have drawn from that series and my own life experiences and beliefs what I see as the sevenfold path to Australia's future. The sevenfold path involves passing seven tests—each of them of seven letters. Pass them and we secure the future. Fail or ignore them and we will languish, a sick and divided nation unwilling to help the underprivileged and unable to meet the challenges of the 21st century.The seven tests are: dignity, respect, harmony, honesty, economy, decency and ecology. A great society protects the dignity of its people so they know they are valued members of the community. A great society offers its respect to all its citizens, including the elderly, and on a day like this to those who have made great sacrifices for their country in times of war. A great society promotes harmony among people with different ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs. A great society expects honesty of its leaders in all aspects of political, business and community life. A great society achieves prosperity from a productive, robust economy where individuals are rewarded for work, innovation and risk taking. A great society values decency in the distribution of prosperity so that everyone achieves a reasonable standard of living, regardless of their capacity to contribute to the generation of wealth. A great society is one whose economic growth is ecologically sustainable so that it does not leave a legacy of environmental degradation for future generations.I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to play a part in fashioning this great free and just society. I give a commitment to work diligently for all the residents of Rankin so that we may all be part of a great society. That we must resume this task from opposition is but a transitory matter, for at the next election the Australian people will embrace the leadership, policies and commitment to a prosperous and just society provided by Kim Beazley and the Australian Labor Party.17:46:00158Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise this afternoon to speak on a number of issues that will be of great significance to the people of the Petrie electorate over the next three years. But, before I do, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the alleged parlous state of Australian politics.There has been a tendency over the last few years for commentators to decry the mood of the Australian electorate. According to the pundits, the electorate has never been more distrustful of politicians and the political system. Some politicians, most notably the Leader of the Opposition, have agreed with this assessment—but somewhat cynically, I would say. As part of the Keating Labor government whose attitude to the electorate was characterised by nothing but contempt for ordinary Australians, the Leader of the Opposition's journey back to the future and his views that people are sick of politicians constantly having a go at each other is a bit rich. You only have to go back as far as yesterday's proceedings to see that if any politician in this country is prepared to kick their opponent at any opportunity then it is the member for Brand.The Leader of the Opposition said on numerous occasions during the recent election campaign that Australian politics needs reinvention. How cynical! If any political party is responsible for the mood of the electorate, then it is the Australian Labor Party.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Come on, Teresa, you don't believe that!9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I learned very early in my term that the Labor Party is the master of deception.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You work for the Prince of Darkness.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—If any political party is the king of saying one thing and doing another, it is the Australian Labor Party. We no longer have the self-proclaimed Placido Domingo of Australian politics, but we do have the Siegfried and Roy of Australian politics—the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I ask members on my left to give the speaker some courtesy, please, and listen to her in silence. We will not have any interjections, thank you.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the member for Banks could just let me continue I would be happy to do so. They are masters of deception and cynical manipulators of public debate in this country. The member for Banks knows that. The Labor leadership team would do anything to get to the treasury bench. They clearly showed in the last election that they would even put the future of the nation at risk for their own political fortunes. They did that in the 1998 election campaign, and we all know that. Their deceptive and negative campaign—it was one of the most negative campaigns that I have ever seen—clearly proved that. It offered absolutely nothing for Australia's future.The Leader of the Opposition's behaviour during the election campaign was proof of the fact that his claimed sensitivity to the electorate, his proclaimed conversion to the need for a reinvention of politics, was nothing more than base political expediency. It was nothing more than a cheap stunt. It was nothing more than the kind of behaviour that is at the heart of the electorate's alleged disenchantment with politics. His comments yesterday after the election of the Speaker only emphasise his cynical attitude towards the electorate and his lack of decorum. Labor and the Leader of the Opposition say one thing and do entirely another. They tried to take the high moral ground on One Nation and then they courted One Nation preferences at the recent election. Such blatant dishonesty must be exposed.Is it any wonder that people think the wheels are falling off the political system? But out there in the real world, the world of ordinary Australians, the mood is very different. The election that determined the make-up of this 39th Parliament was a victory for honest politics. It was a victory for responsible government. The Howard government went to the Australian people with a bold plan to fix Australia's problems and put a responsible government in. Fixing Australia's decaying taxation system is the only way that future generations of Australians will enjoy the same standard of living that we all enjoy here today.Even the former Labor member for Petrie and Labor minister the Hon. Gary Johns agreed with the Howard tax plan. It is amazing the difference in perspective that emerges after departure from political life, as what he said clearly shows. It is worth quoting the Hon. Gary Johns again for the benefit of the members who sit opposite me. On ABC Radio's PM program on 20 August 1998, Mr Johns said he was `coming down firmly on the side of the Howard government's tax package because it's the sort of package that Labor will have to introduce'. Why is that the case? In his words, it is because `any honest, decent government would'.An honest, decent government has introduced it. The Australian public supported an honest decent government by re-electing the Howard government on 3 October with a mandate to implement tax reform. We were up-front about the plan from day one. We had the political courage and the conviction to take a very complicated tax reform package to the electorate. Labor knew that we would do that, and we knew that Labor would campaign in the way that they did. We knew that they would revert to the style so typical of them in the past. But Australians rejected that. They showed renewed faith in the political process by putting their trust in the Howard team. I thank Australians for that, particularly the electors of the electorate of Petrie. I am sure that the Labor Party will also thank Australians in years to come when they know that they have a reformed tax system which cost them nothing politically.On many occasions throughout the campaign, I met with mothers in front of schools. They were very receptive to the positive information about the Howard tax plan. They were also angry at the behaviour of the Australian Labor Party. They felt that Labor's negativity and its unwillingness to face up to the challenges that we know this country faces were totally irresponsible. They were also keen to find out the way in which the current taxation system taxes every aspect of their child's education with a 22 per cent wholesale tax.There is a lesson in this for the member for Jagajaga. The Prime Minister was ahead of the Leader of the Opposition by 25 per cent on economic management. The Prime Minister led the Leader of the Opposition by some 18 per cent on who had credibility when it came to keeping home interest rates low. Courage and conviction have never been strong points of the Labor Party. Labor claims to have eaten humble pie over the last few years, but the humble pie has not even settled in the pits of their stomachs yet.Let me remind the Labor members who believe the ALP is back from the political wilderness just how poorly they did in the state of Queensland. You could not get any worse than the 1996 result, where they were reduced to two members out of 26. Given the difficulty the government faced in selling its tax package, you would have thought that the Labor Party would have reclaimed over half the seats in Queensland—in fact it did not.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—What's your margin?9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I'm here, aren't I? Let me reiterate the Labor record in Queensland, because it is really worth highlighting. They were able to pick up over a quarter—seven seats out of 27 seats. The Beazley team picked up five seats in Queensland. To my mind, this is an indication that Queenslanders do not believe the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition anymore. In fact, it says that most Queenslanders think the Labor Party has a long way to go.On 3 October, Australians voted for a plan that would secure their future. The first Howard government put in place an economic environment that has made things matter to ordinary Australians. Home interest rates are the lowest in almost 30 years. One of the best things a government can do for average Australians is to help them turn their dreams into reality. The second Howard government has built on this. It will put in place a tax system that removes the burden on PAYE income tax payers. It will encourage saving and overtime, and it will catch the tax cheats in the black economy.The people of the Petrie electorate will also have a federal representative who will work hard to ensure that the electorate receives the attention it so rightly deserves. My top priority in my second term as the member for Petrie will be to improve the opportunities for young people in the electorate: opportunities for jobs, for training, for self-expression and, most important of all, the opportunity to have a fulfilling and rewarding life.I often see young people in the electorate who seem very directionless. More often than not, they are young men. When I speak to these young people, the thing that comes through in the conversation is that many young people suffer from a lack of self-worth and from feelings of alienation. That is, indeed, a tragedy. I am sure that all members present would agree that it is a scourge plaguing our young people, especially the country's young men at the moment.Youth suicide is a plague that demands our immediate attention. Youth suicide can affect anyone. It can be the dux of the school or it can be the 26-year-old father of two small children who recently died. It is an issue that affects many people in Petrie. I was shocked recently when I attended a forum with people who had had personal experience in some way—through family, friends or a mate—and had been tragically affected by this particular case of suicide.Perhaps the best way to address this issue is to provide hope and belief that there is a future worth living for. Perhaps we can go back as far as school. Like many of the members of the House, I have had the good fortune to attend a number of school ceremonies recently. The overwhelming factor when I see young people collecting their academic and sporting prizes is the high proportion of young women to men. I would go so far as to say that in my electorate 70 per cent of young women to young men collect the awards.We need to go back and look at why young men are not achieving in the school environ ment and give them more opportunities for self-development and self-esteem. This is clearly an area that is lacking in our schools. Jobs are an important part of what happens to young people when they leave school. We have to give young people a voice. We have to let them know that we, as the community at large, value their opinions and beliefs. We have to make them feel valued and included. That is a priority in my term.Young people have been demonised in recent times by some parts of the media. In doing so, those sections of the media have played to and heightened the anxieties of another important part of the community—older people. A constituent once commented to me about why older people in Redcliffe avoid using the automatic teller machine. It is not necessarily because they fear technology: it is because they fear teenagers in tracksuits and baseball caps. More often than not, that fear is totally unfounded. In fact, the young man in the baseball cap could be a straight-A student, a future Rhodes scholar, or even a future prime minister.By helping young people, we may be helping other members of our community. If young people have direction to work, and have a secure belief in themselves, I believe that this will help change the mood of the community and hopefully allay the sorts of anxieties that are held by older members of the community.The government's Work for the Dole scheme and the Green Corps program are the kinds of programs that give young people the direction they need. In fact, I was really proud to have the first Green Corps program in Australia launched in my electorate of Petrie. I am proud to say that there was a marked difference in the participants in that program from when they started to when they graduated. Their self-development, their confidence and their ability to look into the future were just amazing.I am proud to have been part of a government that reformed welfare allowances for young people so that they stay in training and in school and they go to university longer. Programs such as the School-to-Work program that operates in the Petrie electorate are also an invaluable way of helping young people make the transition from education to work. A number of schools are involved, including Nashville High. They take part in some excellent programs that will help those pupils in future development along their career paths.Older people are also a large part of the Petrie electorate. Petrie has a high percentage of the population over 55, and a lot of them are veterans of the world wars, the Korean and the Vietnam Wars and other military actions such as the Malaysian emergency. It is rather appropriate, therefore, that I outline my intention to work hard to maintain services for the older people in the Petrie electorate on Armistice Day 1998. In the last term, I fought hard to not only retain but improve services for older people in my electorate.One example that springs to mind is the cardiac rehabilitation unit at Redcliffe Hospital. The cardiac rehabilitation unit provided a very valuable service to people on the Redcliffe Peninsula and was funded through the federal government by the division of general practice. It closed, however, last year due to a change of policy direction on a lower level in the electorate, not through federal funding by any means. I fought hard to maintain that particular division of general practice and also was able to secure extra funds from the federal Minister for Health and Family Services to keep it running. It is still operating, but I want to emphasise the particular services it provides for the people of Petrie and the level of service that they have come to expect. Heart and cardiac disease are increasing, not decreasing. The unit provides a vital service for people recovering from heart attacks. The last thing people needed to be told was that their service was going to close—that would only cause them more stress. I was really glad to be able to stand up and fight on behalf of 2½ thousand people on the Redcliffe Peninsula.In this term, I will continue to focus on promoting the cause of older Australians. I will fight for more respite funding for the electorate. I will continue to ensure that older people have a choice about where they live and how they choose to live. To that end, community home care funding is crucial and will enable people to have that choice. I have received home care funding in the previous term and I will continue to fight for that particular funding because I know that it makes a tremendous amount of difference in the Petrie electorate. I know that on the occasion that I have had the good fortune to go up to the Blue Nurses I was able to see that particular home care funding being put to good use. That is excellent, and the quality of people's lives is much enhanced. As a member of the Howard government team, I will ensure that older people of the Petrie electorate have a voice in Canberra.Roads and transport is another area that is important to this electorate. The Petrie electorate stretches from Stafford in the south to Deception Bay in the north. You can literally travel the entire length of the electorate on two roads, taking only one left turn along the whole way. Nevertheless, the road is a major arterial road and you are bound to encounter traffic problems. It was incredibly rewarding for me to have the Prime Minister visit the electorate during the recent election and announce that some $25 million would be provided to extend the Bruce Highway near Dohles Rocks Road to four lanes. That has been a bottleneck for many years. I recently had the privilege to talk with a group of young schoolchildren, and I spoke to them about roads and transport systems as part of what the federal government provided. One of the things they highlighted to me was being stuck with mum and dad in the traffic on the way back from the wonderful north coast at the Dohles Rock exit. There can be delays sometimes for up to an hour there. I am sure that this will go a very long way to easing congestion that so many of the people of Petrie experience on their way to Brisbane from Redcliffe or on their way back home from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane's northern suburbs. This stretch of road is in fact so notorious that the school kids had no problem at all remembering it. I know that the improvement will be very much welcomed in my electorate.It will also ease the burden that will be felt when the Mango Hill development gets fully under way. My electorate is going through some huge growth in the next 20 years and the Mango Hill area will have an additional 30,000 residents. It is important that there be an excellent road transport corridor which will assist those people in their day-to-day life.The electorate of Petrie also encompasses two distinct areas: the northern suburbs of Brisbane, which have the problems that any large city would have; and the Redcliffe Peninsula, which shares the problems that I believe are experienced in regional Australia. It is important that each area of the electorate receives specialised attention. In the northern end, I am pleased to be—along with the member for Longman—part of the Area Consultative Committee, or ACC. It encompasses the Kilcoy and the Caboolture Shire Councils and the Redcliffe City Council. I am very pleased this afternoon to have in the gallery two councillors who are here today at the local government conference, Councillor Rita Smith and Councillor Doug Smith. I would like to welcome them. I appreciate their coming to the gallery to see me today.It is important that we continue to address these problems and to make sure that economic development and local jobs get top priority in the electorate. By that we will encourage local businesses to export and we will encourage them to be as productive as they can. I was very fortunate to organise a number of meetings on export opportunities for the people of Redcliffe. It is a very diverse electorate. We have a huge seafood industry, as well as a very large medical technology exporting area. We have Aboriginal art that is being exported around the world and we also have Australian souvenirs. As a result of my organising a round table recently, a number of the exporters who came along were able to get some very valuable trade advice, as well as forming strategic alliances. (Time expired)162Mr DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Before I call the honourable member for Griffith, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend him the usual courtesies.18:06:00162Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP01—Politics is about power. It is about the power of the state. It is about the power of the state as applied to individuals, the society in which they live and the economy in which they work. Most critically, our responsibility in this parliament is how that power is used: whether it is used for the benefit of the few or the many. In this my first speech I want to speak on the fundamental principles that I believe should govern the exercise of political power and the reasons, therefore, that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party and why I have sought election to this parliament. I want to speak on how these beliefs shape my approach to some of the great policy challenges now facing the nation. I also want to speak on some of the practical problems facing the local community that it is now my privilege to represent in this place.I believe that ideas are important. Ideas shape behaviour—the behaviour of governments, of bureaucracies, of business, of unions, of the media and of individuals. As Keynes wrote in his General Theory:The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slave of some defunct economist.Debate, therefore, about fundamental ideas, particularly ideas about the proper role of the state in the economy and society, is critical to an informed discussion about policy. For nearly a decade now it has become fashionable to accept the death of ideology, the triumph of neoclassical economics, the politics of convergence and the rise of managerialism. Put crudely, it is the view that, because parties of the traditional Right and traditional Left have now moved to some mythical place called the `Centre', all that is left is an essentially technocratic decision between one team of managers against another, both operating within a common, or at least similar, mission statement. Politics on this argument becomes little more than theatre—a public performance necessary to convince the shareholders at the AGM that the company needs new management.I disagree, and I disagree fundamentally. I believe that there remains a fundamental divide between our two parties on the proper role of the state in a modern economy and society. This government's view is a minimalist view of the role of government. It is a view that holds that markets rather than governments are better determinants of not only efficiency but also equity. It is a view that is often described as neoclassical, but on closer inspection there is much less Smith and much more Hobbes and his particularly bleak view of human nature. It is Friedman, it is Hayek and most recently it is popularised in Daniel Yergin's tract celebrating the demise of government at the hands of the market.It is a view that now dominates the treasuries of the nation—both Commonwealth and state—and their combined orthodoxy that a good government is a government in retreat—retreat from any form of ownership, retreat from most forms of regulation and retreat from responsibility for the delivery of as many services as possible. It is a view which says, in effect, that governments are the enemies of freedom while failing to reflect on the fact that markets look to governments to regulate them to ensure their proper functioning.It is a view that is Thatcherism writ large, including her most infamous proclamation that there is no such thing as society. And it is a view that labour markets are like any other market that should be deregulated because, according to this view, labour is no different from any other commodity.This is not my view. Nor is it the view of the Australian Labor Party, of which I have been a proud member for 17 years. I started attending meetings of Young Labor as a school kid in the Nambour cane growers hall in 1974. Nambour, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, was not a major centre of revolutionary socialism in the 1970s—the cane growers hall even less so. I was the son of a share farmer—a member of the Country Party, although I think not a particularly active one—who worked a 400-acre dairy farm just outside the neighbouring town of Eumundi. I happily attended the local primary school and high school.But when my father was accidentally killed and my mother, like thousands of others, was left to rely on the bleak charity of the time to raise a family, it made a young person think. It made me think that a decent social security system designed to protect the weak was no bad thing. It made me think that the provision of decent public housing to the poor was the right thing to do. When I saw people unnecessarily die in the appallingly underfunded Queensland hospital system of the 1960s and 1970s it made me think that the provision of a decent universal health system should be one of the first responsibilities of the state.When the kids I went to school with—most of them the daughters and sons of good Country Party families—were unable even to begin to realise their potential because of the abysmal levels of funding to the Queensland school system during those halcyon days of the Bjelke-Petersen government, it made me think that there was something fundamentally crook. If equality of opportunity does not begin in the school system, it begins nowhere at all.We are all the product of our own experiences and the ideas with which we have been confronted. These are the simple experiences and unremarkable beliefs which cause me to sit proudly here rather than on the benches of those opposite. I believe unapologetically in an active role for government. I believe that this activist role should have as its foremost guiding principle a commitment to equality of opportunity that is real rather than rhetorical. It is a principle that should permeate all that we do in education and health. I also believe that governments must actively look after those who, through no fault of their own, cannot look after themselves. I believe that governments must regulate markets.Competitive markets are massive and generally efficient generators of economic wealth. They must therefore have a central place in the management of the economy. But markets sometimes fail, requiring direct government intervention through instruments such as industry policy. There are also areas where the public good dictates that there should be no market at all.I also believe that governments should not just turn in on themselves, but instead have a fundamental responsibility to pursue the public good internationally in the promotion of regional and global security, democracy and economic development and the protection of the planet.These are the fundamental beliefs that continue to drive the modern Labor Party. Ours is a dynamic, not a static, movement. Our beliefs are continuing but their application to the policy challenges facing the nation require creativity and experimentation. Our party is a combination of experience and youth. Through this it possesses the intellectual horsepower and the policy craft necessary to carve out an alternative vision for the nation as well as a program of action for the realisation of that vision.We are not afraid of a vision in the Labor Party, but nor are we afraid of doing the hard policy yards necessary to turn that vision into reality. Parties of the Centre Left around the world are wrestling with a similar challenge—the creation of a competitive economy while advancing the overriding imperative of a just society. Some call this the `third way'. The nomenclature is unimportant. What is important is that it is a repudiation of Thatcherism and its Australian derivatives represented opposite. It is in fact a new formulation of the nation's economic and social imperatives. Together with my colleagues who have spoken here today and those who have been here for some time, I look forward to participating in that policy challenge.As we enter the new century, the nation is confronted with an array of opportunities and challenges of bewildering complexity in the economy, in education, in our international engagements, in the environment, in the collapse of our local communities, in the structure of the federation and, perhaps most importantly, in the deepening contempt with which the institution of parliament itself is held. We are at present in a period of unprecedented global economic uncertainty, driven by fundamentally unstable international financial markets. As the Australian Reserve Bank Governor stated most recently and starkly:Given the bigger role for economic contagion, more and more people are asking whether the international financial system as it has operated for most of the 1990s is basically unstable. . . By now, I think the majority of observers have come to the conclusion that it is, and that sudden changes have to be made.This is perhaps one of the most significant public statements by a Reserve Bank Governor in a decade. Governments around the world, including this one, now struggle with what new regulatory structure should be put in place, as the market has apparently failed adequately to apply its own disciplines.Despite this profound instability, we have a government dedicating its political and intellectual energies not to this but to the introduction of a tax that the literature demonstrates will at best have a marginal impact on growth but a tax that, at its core, transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. There will be few greater tests of the leadership of this government than the calibre of its contribution to establishing the new international architecture referred to by the Governor. For if the government fails, the price will be paid through the jobs of ordinary Australians.A second fundamental challenge facing government lies in our nation's education system. Education is both a tool of social justice as well as a fundamental driver of economic development. I believe that the nation needs a revolution in its education system. We have state curricula of highly variable quality and a decline of critical subject areas such as science. We have a demoralised teaching profession whose energies are now dissipated in school administration rather than in syllabus delivery. We have state government, not to mention non-government systems, collapsing under the sheer weight of the funding requirement for the comprehensive introduction of information technology into the curriculum, syllabus and daily classroom teaching. As a nation, these problems need to be tackled head on. Because of the funding imperative, they must be tackled jointly by the Commonwealth and the states.I believe we need to do something radical about teachers' salaries and the overall status of the teaching profession. I believe we need to do something equally radical about quality assurance of school curricula. I also believe that, if we are serious in our national rhetoric about having the next generation of Australians selling their skills across the world through every medium of electronic commerce, then we must, through the school system, equip them to do that. I understand that my remarks will be met by the inevitable chorus of, `We cannot afford it,' but I ask the question: `As a nation, can we afford not to?' I believe that equity and economic development demand it. In a global economy, a first-class education is one of the few forms of real security that the state can provide to its citizens.I would also like to address the nature of Australia's international engagements. In foreign policy, Australia's challenge, as we all know, is compounded by its history and its geography. In Asia the task is complicated by the fact that, as the previous foreign minister so aptly put it, `we are the odd man in'. We have no option other than one of comprehensive engagement, both in rhetoric and in reality. We need not dwell here on the incalculable damage that has been done to the nation's standing in the region over the last three years.Despite the enormous changes to Australia's ethnicity since the war, we are still seen in the region as an essentially European enclave in a region of non-European cultures. All of these cultures, during the last several centuries, have been colonised by one European state or another—some in the ugliest of fashions.When the region looks at us, it is often through the deep cultural prism of their respective national experiences of European colonisation over a long period of time, experiences that for them were almost universally negative. When you add to that the particular overlay of the White Australia policy and the fact that the White Australia policy has been taught in most of the region's school history texts for several generations, it becomes easier to understand why our place in this region can sometimes be delicate. There is, of course, no reason for this nation to apologise for its heritage. We are proudly Australian and should remain so. But as a nation we need to understand how others perceive us, because that helps us in our behaviour towards the region. The nation cannot afford a repeat of the mistakes of the last three years. The damage is already great; the stakes are now too high. The repair work will probably take a decade.There is also the question of Australia's engagement in multilateral agencies. There is a sense around the region and beyond it that Australia is retreating from the vigorous multilateralism of its past. Australia has, for a long time, prided itself in punching above its weight in international fora. For a small nation of 18 million people we have prided ourselves, from Evatt to Evans, in the shaping of major international institutions and the resolution of international problems—political, economic and strategic.Not only have we prided ourselves on our achievements, but we have also been respected as an effective international citizen. This represents the cumulative capital of successive Australian governments, ministers and officials. This capital must be husbanded and harnessed for the future. That requires leadership—leadership that the current foreign minister is demonstrably incapable of providing. Our future challenge is to build across this nation a robust domestic constituency in support of Australia's future international engagement, one that will not be hijacked by the periodic outbreak of local populism.I am in this place, first and foremost, as a representative of my local community, which has done me the great honour of electing me as their representative. I represent the inner southern suburbs of Brisbane. In my local community the first problem we face is that of unemployment. Parents in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, like parents everywhere, want their children to have a job, to have a good job and to have job security.One of the major employers in my electorate is Queensland Meats, which—together with several associated processing facilities—is responsible for nearly 1,000 jobs. These jobs were thrown into jeopardy by a unilateral decision by the previous Queensland coalition government to have the facility closed down without any effort to make the business viable and without any effort to retrain or redeploy the work force.For many months now I have been working with the local state member and state government to try and undo this disaster and to assist and identify new investment into the facility. Time will tell whether we succeed but, if we do, it will mean 1,000 jobs saved through industry policy, which would otherwise have been lost.Mr Deputy Speaker, in the less than four weeks that I have been the member for Griffith I have visited 23 of my local schools. The cost of out-of-school-hours care programs in my schools has ballooned as a result of changes in the funding formula of the Howard government. It has made OSHC less affordable for average working families. In the case of vacation care, it is now 100 per cent more expensive than it was last year, causing one of my vacation care programs to close, after having been in operation for the previous 13 years.The southern suburbs of Brisbane have also experienced significant cutbacks in other government services. The most notable of these has been the closure of two of our three local Medicare offices, and now we have the cutbacks to Centrelink.Finally, people who live on the south side of Brisbane value greatly their quality of life. They love their `Queenslanders', and they love their verandahs. They are incensed at the proposal by the Brisbane Airport Corporation to construct a parallel runway, which would have the effect of doubling the volume of aircraft over the suburbs. By 2006 it is projected that Brisbane airport will have as many aircraft each day as Sydney has at present. The opportunity presents itself not simply to repeat the mistakes made in Sydney but instead to learn from them.We in this place are the product of our families, our friends and our communities. Without them we would be nothing. I would like to thank my wife, friend and partner, Therese. I would like to thank my three fantastic kids, Jessica, Nicholas and Marcus, for reminding their father of his human frailty and for making me laugh. I would like to acknowledge my father, Bert, who died nearly 30 years ago. He was the classic Australian, whose response to every question of, `How are you, Bert?' was, `I've been battling.'I would like to thank my mother, Margaret—who is here today—for her support over a lifetime. I would like to thank my brothers Malcolm and Greg and my sister Loree, who returned from living in Moscow to work on my campaign. I would like to thank my campaign team of Sharon Dryden and David Brennan—who fought the good fight despite a periodically irritable candidate—and all the branch members and volunteers.In politics, I would also like to thank a number of individuals: John Buchan, a family friend of more than 50 years who went to his maker only last month and who, despite our political differences, always encouraged me to pursue a career in public life following the death of my father; and Bob Callandar, former editor of the then Sydney Sun, who in the seventies left the rat-race in Sydney, went to grow pineapples—badly—in Nambour, failed, and introduced me to the Australian Labor Party. I also thank the former Labor member for Griffith, Ben Humphries, as a friend and for being a great local member. I would also like to thank my colleagues in this place: Con Sciacca, Arch Bevis, John Hogg and my longstanding friend Wayne Swan. Finally, I thank my friend of more than 10 years standing, Wayne Goss—whom history will treat well as a Queensland Premier who restored decency to the public administration of his state following decades of indecency.I do not know whether I will be in this place for a short or a long time. That is for others to decide. But what I do know is that I have no intention of being here for the sake of just being here. Together with my colleagues it is my intention to make a difference. (Time expired)UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!18:26:00166Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—In this address-in-reply debate, I intend to compare the alternatives to compulsory student unionism in Australia and propose the introduction of voluntary student representation.Mr Melham interjecting—9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—This will not come as any surprise to the member for Banks. Western democracies have witnessed two powerful forces at work in recent decades. An ideological struggle has been waged in parliaments around the globe between forces who passionately advocate Ronald Reagan's small government mantra that `government is not the solution but the problem', and those who argue that government has a social responsibility to regulate the conduct of its citizens and industries at the expense of individual liberty.It is time to retire the zealous pursuit of outdated ideologies. A 21st century Australia must break free from the manacles of yesterday's thinking. A 21st century Australia cannot be built on 20th century ideals. Governments throughout the world must be responsive and make a legitimate attempt to embrace the concept of citizenship as a duty as well as a right.The coalition government in its first term has laid the foundations for the next century with responsible fiscal policies to repair the economic vandalism of the former Labor government. Fiscal achievements aside, the coalition government has introduced important and enduring social policy initiatives. The government's progressive immigration policy is a case in point.In this parliament, the coalition can turn its attention to further non-economic reform. Tertiary education is one such area, in particular the reinvigoration of student unions. The coalition government has taken difficult but necessary steps to ensure the long-term viability and competitiveness of our universities while building on the present level of academic excellence. Under the government's tertiary education reforms implemented in our first term, the 30 per cent of Australia's young people wishing to pursue academic studies now have the opportunity to take their first preference of study, except in the medicine course, if they can afford to pay the up-front fee for the 25 per cent of places over and above the Commonwealth funded places.For most students, up-front fees are not a viable or preferred option. Accordingly, there are more Commonwealth funded undergraduate or HECS places now available than there were under the former Labor government. Consequently, many of our young people now have greater opportunities including, firstly, those students who get their first preference course for their university education and, secondly, the students who would have lost their opportunity to do their first preference course because another student had accepted that HECS funded place. These reforms have been achieved by the coalition government while maintaining funding per capita per student at $11,200 for university undergraduates.The results speak for themselves. In the 1997 academic year, there were 17,000 new places at universities and undergraduate HECS funded places. At the same time, 55,000 new TAFE enrolments were recorded. The accomplishments of a nation's higher education system are measured by many factors. It is essential for Australia's future that Australia's tertiary institutions not only continue to maintain world-class standards but continue to set higher standards to remain competitive in the world market.The introduction of fee-paying students, both overseas and Australian, will lend itself to continuing our competitiveness in the international higher education market. The regulated fee paying student system means that Australian universities have a strong financial incentive to deliver a high quality product to Australian and overseas students. These measures will also produce spin-off benefits for non-fee paying students.If Australia is to continue to remain an economic power of significance in the Asian region, it is essential to maintain world best practice in our universities and centres of higher learning. Maintaining world best practice in our tertiary institutions should not be confused with supporting the status quo. Like most industries, tertiary education is an evolutionary process with little need for sentimentality. Campus life for university students extends beyond academic parameters. Institutions of further education throughout Australia are the cradle of our nation's leadership.Universities throughout Australia have had a notable role in fostering and developing individual creativity and the expression of ideas in extracurricular activities. Many of these extracurricular activities and services are as a result of, or are provided by, student unions. As a university student only a decade ago, some of the most important lessons I learnt were during my tenure as President of the Adelaide University Liberal Club, Vice-President of the Students Association and a member of the University Union Board. Indeed, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, who is at the table, was the president of a student union—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—SRC.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—or an SRC, and many other members of this chamber developed their political skills and instincts on the political battlegrounds of university campuses throughout Australia.The provision by student unions of extracurricular activities and services on university campuses cater to a great variety of student needs and interests. Of course, these services come at a considerable cost. To provide these services, student unions throughout Australia collectively acquire, through compulsory means, over $30 million every academic year from students. But student unions also take an interest in causes and politics beyond the extracurricular activities that add to the culture of student life. Too often, these causes are manifested in partisan political activity. Not all students would support these partisan activities but they are forced to fund them through compulsory fees.There exists a substantial body of evidence which raises serious concerns about the conduct and operation of some student unions. In 1992, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Student Representative Council spent $250 on library and parking fines for its women's officer. The Northern Territory University Student Union suffered losses of over $44,000 promoting a Bob Geldof concert. The Australian Union of Students collapsed in 1984 after a string of business failures. The most monumental was the collapse of AUS Student Travel in August 1977. When its creditors seized control of the company, they were met with debts in the vicinity of $2½ million. Not to be outdone, the AUS Friendly Society folded with debts of over $157,000 against assets of $7½ thousand dollars.Of course, the National Union of Students rose some years later, out of the ashes of the AUS. The NUS is an unabashed partisan political player. It is infamous for its total failure to successfully represent the interests of students. Many will regard the NUS as an arm of the Labor Party. In 1989, the University of Queensland Student Union closed the student radio station 4ZZZ. This enterprise had amassed debts in excess of $100,000. It was estimated at the time that the closure of the station would save University of Queensland students over $70,000 a year.In the 1996 federal election, the Queensland University of Technology Student Guild spent $34,000 of students' money in a partisan campaign against the Liberal candidate for the seat of Moreton. Many students and their families were distressed at the fact that a portion of compulsorily acquired student fees was used to campaign against an excellent representative, my friend Mr Gary Hardgrave.I think it is a fair comment to suggest that most university students resent these types of unnecessary, unjustifiable and unethical expenses which are incurred by their respective student unions. Student union fees for full-time students at most universities range between $170 and $300 a year, which can equate to approximately $1,000 over the course of a typical four-year degree.For most university students, this is a very significant cost at a time when a student is often least equipped to absorb these fees in competition with the costs of textbooks and other expenses associated with the start of the academic year. Unlike the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, student union fees cannot be deferred until such time as the student is in a financially secure position.Like all consumers, university students can justify these fees if they feel they are getting value for their money. The monopolistic characteristics and uncompetitive practices of student unions in general ensure that most university students seldom experience the satisfaction of money well spent when it comes to student union fees.For other students, the issue is not the cost of the compulsorily acquired fees but the right to freedom of association. The right to freedom of association is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is a fundamental principle of the Liberal Party. The doctrine of compulsory unionism strikes at the heart of every liberal.In response to the failings of the compulsory student union system, the Western Australian government enacted voluntary student unionism legislation to take effect in the 1995 academic year. Student guild membership in Western Australian universities fell to about 20 to 30 per cent of the total student body within 12 months of the enactment of the legislation. I have read one report which claims that at one university student guild membership fell to just eight per cent of the student body.The cause for this fall in membership following the enactment of voluntary student unionism is threefold. Firstly, there is the obvious problem of student apathy. Increasing commitments at work or at home mean that people want to enjoy the flexibility of not belonging. Secondly, anecdotal evidence collected in Western Australia suggests that students value their right to freedom of association. Thirdly, students have voted with their feet on the issue of value for money when it comes to student union fees.Clearly, student unions throughout Australia need to be more competitive and more responsive to the needs of the students they purport to represent. Ultimately, the success of unions depends on whether or not they can provide services that their members and customers want. There needs to be a better attitude from student unions towards the provision of services.The Victorian government has introduced legislation prohibiting compulsory student unionism. Voluntary student representation is an alternative to the Western Australian non-compulsory student union model. The Tertiary Education (Amendment) Bill 1994, which is the Victorian bill, allows for a list of items of direct benefit that compulsorily acquired student fees can be applied to which the Victorian government believes are important to students on a tertiary campus.Section 12F(3) of the Victorian act provides that revenue raised from compulsory and non-academic fees may be spent on the following activities: food and beverages, meeting rooms, sport and physical recreation, child care, counselling, legal advice, health care, housing, employment, visual arts, performing arts and audiovisual media, debating, libraries and reading rooms, academic support, personal support, personal accident insurance for students, orientation information and support for overseas students. This list is made subject to regulations and there is power to add to the list following proposals from vice-chancellors or directors of TAFE colleges.The legislation also provides that upon enrolment for the academic year students are required to contribute a compulsory non-academic fee which goes towards the costs involved in the provision of important student services. Furthermore, the Victorian legislation curtails the agenda-driven and non-essential activities which some student unions have participated in over the years.A corollary of the primary proposition in support of non-compulsory student unionism is that a student should not be compelled to contribute, by way of a compulsory levy, to political causes to which that individual does not subscribe or which does not benefit the general student body. The now defunct Australian Union of Students' notorious decision to support the Palestine Liberation Organisation is a case in point.It is difficult to objectively assess the effectiveness of the models of non-compulsory student unionism operating in Western Australia and Victoria. Although the respective pieces of legislation were enacted for the 1995 academic year, the former federal Labor government interfered via the Higher Education Funding (Student Organisations) Amendment Bill in September 1994, which I remember because I spoke on that bill in this House at that time. This bill became colloquially known as `the SOS legislation' and was among the more scandalous abuses of taxpayers' money by the former Labor government. Before this bill was amended by the coalition government on coming to office in 1996, approximately $14.5 million of taxpayers' money was funnelled or channelled into student unions in Western Australia and Victoria to make up for the shortfall in student union fees as a result of non-compulsory student unionism. What did taxpayers get for their money?In 1995, the La Trobe University student newspaper Rabelais published an article instructing its readership on the art of shoplifting, for example. Because of the former Labor government's interference, this publication was essentially paid for by the taxpayer.Senator Natasha Stott Despoja has been very vocal in her support for compulsory student unionism. A hallmark of Senator Stott Despoja's political career has been her ability to create a dislocation between appearance and reality. Senator Stott Despoja argues that reforming compulsory student unionism will contribute to a psychological disincentive for young people to participate in tertiary education. Is there any wonder that the public are treating Senator Stott Despoja with increasing cynicism?In considering where to study, students are far more likely to consider factors such as the reputation of the particular faculty and the university, the curriculum of the particular course of study, the possibility of postgraduate study and perhaps even the geographical location of the institution. The status of the university's student union is important only from the perspective of the culture that it contributes to. The compulsory nature of the union fee has no bearing on that culture. Indeed, Senator Stott Despoja's views on compulsory student unionism are at odds with the views of the founder of the Democrats, Don Chipp, who is a passionate supporter of non-compulsory student unionism.Student unions often provide useful and sometimes essential student services which contribute to the variety and quality of life on the campuses of our colleges and universities. But should students be compelled to join them? The freedom to choose whether or not to be a union member and to be free to make that decision without the risk of discrimination, threats, coercion, duress or victimisation is an integral part of our social fabric. A 21st century Australia cannot accept the student union mantra of `no fee, no degree' and a continuation of their closed-shop practices.In the 38th Parliament, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs made it clear that we were looking at what kind of voluntary student unionism or voluntary student representation we may seek to introduce. In the 39th Parliament, we must act to introduce voluntary student representation.Voluntary student representation has the advantage of ensuring that the cultural pursuits of a university that add so much to a student's experience of tertiary education are able to be maintained. It also ensures that an individual can choose whether or not they wish to financially support a student union that is often engaged in partisan and sometimes esoteric political action. Only then will student unions have to be responsive to the demands of the student body for real representation.The coalition has acknowledged that compulsory student unionism is a policy area which requires reform. The challenge for the Labor Party is to abandon yesterday's ideologies and make constructive contributions to this policy development. In a recent edition of the Daily Telegraph, the ever-popular Labor Party member for Werriwa, Mr Latham, said:The Labor Party must once again start to take policy seriously, not just as a campaign convenience, not just as something to be picked up and thrown away with all the gravity of a KFC wrapper.If the Labor Party wish to participate in genuine policy development, it cannot attempt to continue to hoodwink Australians into believing that employees and students are incapable of understanding and protecting their own interests without the compulsory involvement of unions.On 25 November, many liberals will celebrate the 21st anniversary of the judgment in the landmark case of Clark v. University of Melbourne & Ors. In his judgment, Justice Kaye found that the University of Melbourne did not have the legal right to levy a compulsory union fee on students. His Honour's judgment also found that a significant number of payments authorised by the Student Representative Council were illegal and improper. In the following 21 years, the issue of compulsory student unionism has remained largely unresolved due to the desperate acts of the Labor Party. The celebration of this anniversary is a timely occasion to reform compulsory student unionism.18:44:00171Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Thank you for the call, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. Let me say how delighted I am to see that since I was last here you have been elevated to the role of Deputy Speaker, and congratulations to you. I would also like to say how nice it is to be back here representing one of the greatest regions in Australia. But I must admit I was concerned this morning, when I had a look at my fax machine, to see a set of statistics printed out by that machine that had me listed as a National Party member.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—That's libellous!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—It's not so much libellous as the fact that while I accept with credit that I represent a major rural and regional area—and I would like to think that I do it well and I think it has probably been recognised in these statistics—on analysing the statistics more closely I found that, with my margin of 1.22 per cent, if I were a National Party member I would have the 13th most marginal seat. But when I extrapolate it back to Labor Party statistics, I am only the seventh most marginal seat, and so it tells me something.It tells me that a lot of people in the coalition have extremely marginal seats. It is interesting in these days when we hear a lot about mandate, especially from those who are espousing this magnificent mandate that they have for this parliament, that we find it is supported by so many regions that have extremely slim margins indeed. When I have a look I find areas such as Herbert in Queensland, Eden-Monaro in New South Wales, Hinkler, Richmond, LaTrobe and McEwen—all regions that undoubtedly at the last election came very close to shunning the coalition and re-electing a Labor member, and I have no doubt at the next election what they will.Before I go to the Governor-General's speech of yesterday, I would also like to say how proud I was today to be present for many of the first speeches of the new class of people that came in with this opposition at the last election. I have no doubt that at the next election, whenever it may be held, we will be sitting on the opposite benches.Let us go back to the Governor-General's speech of yesterday in which he outlined his hopes and aspirations for this particular government and in which he talked about economic reform, reform for industrial relations and hope for young people. I would like to take everyone here this evening back to about 7 o'clock Eastern Standard Time on the evening of 3 October when the first polls, the first real votes—the first votes cast by Australians—were coming in and being counted. We all remember what was happening: the analysts were making some pretty wild predictions. They were heady days for us because they were predicting the possibility of a Labor victory, and then they moderated that to perhaps a hung parliament.Now, of course, we know the final outcome, and we must congratulate the government. But the whole of Australia out there knows how close this election was to being the reverse—how close the Labor Party did come to actually being in government. And that is the thing that is going to force us on during this period of government to make sure that this government, which claims it has a mandate, does in fact serve the people as it claims it is going to.We all remember 1996. I particularly remember it because I stopped representing my electorate for a short while and was put on the benches on the side. I specifically remember at that time a Prime Minister with such a large majority that he really did have a mandate. He had a mandate to do something about unemployment, he had a mandate to do something about foreign investment and he had a mandate to ensure that no Australian was worse off. I wonder what happened to that mandate, because I know that, going to the election in 1998, none of those things that he had a mandate for had been fulfilled, not one.Indeed, quite a large number of promises had been broken. We all know the fiasco of the nursing homes. We all know how unemployment did not come down. We all know how foreign debt blew out by about $50 billion. These were the things that were promised to the people of Australia in 1996 but were ignored by a government that wanted them to be ignored because of its inactivity in 1998. Is it any wonder that 51½ per cent of Australians, on a two party preferred basis, voted for the Labor Party and voted for a change in government? That is what they wanted but, because of the dispersal of the votes and the way they fell, unfortunately it did not happen.So we wonder why we now have a Prime Minister who stands up so authoritatively and demands that he has a mandate for things such as tax reform, industrial relations reform, competition policy and all those instruments of economic rationalism that are hurting regional and rural Australia so much.I represent one of the great regions of Australia—from the Barrington Tops of Gloucester, where timber and rural industry abound, right down to the Hunter River, a region that takes in a large air force base, a large aluminium smelter and some of the most beautiful scenery in Australia. I represent some of the best people in Australia, people who have hopes and aspirations like every Australian that they will continue to be gainfully employed and that their children can grow up and look forward to a job working with skills that have preceded them, because there is no doubt that the Hunter is one of our most diverse and one of our most industrious regions. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you would not object to me saying that in the Hunter we have a GDP greater than Tasmania's and we have a population greater than Tasmania's.Unfortunately, we have unemployment that is about 1½ times the national average. We have youth unemployment that is in excess of 30 per cent, and that is something I cannot understand. When wealth is created in a region in abundance, such as it is in the Hunter region, it always amazes me that those organisations that make that wealth do not reinvest enough of it to ensure that that region is ongoing, that that region is sustained by the wealth that is being created. I am sure that you can sympathise with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that, in your own state of Tasmania, exactly the same thing happens: the wealth is created and it is taken away. Unfortunately, from what I see of this government, that is a policy that it tends to support. And the wealth all goes to the capital cities.In the Hunter region, it is no secret that we have a steelworks that is going to close next year. It has been the mainstay of our economy, the mainstay of employment. When I was a schoolchild, most of my schoolmates knew that they would be employed in the steel industry—they would be tradesmen or engineers or industrial chemists. Next year it will be gone. That will no longer be a source of employment for tens of thousands of Hunter people.So it was in 1997 that, after this announcement, the Prime Minister—as he then was and still is—was led kicking and screaming to meet with the unions and the business sector of the Hunter region to announce what this government would do to assist. The Hunter Advantage Fund of $10 million was set up. Actually, I find it interesting that the princely sum of $10 million dollars was allocated to save jobs for the people of the Hunter region when this government could turn around and spend $15 million of taxpayers' money to advertise—illegally, I would suggest—a tax reform that people indicated by vote they did not want. We got $10 million.Today I asked the Prime Minister in question time to advise me if he had monitored that $10 million. I can tell you that he has not. I can tell you that he could not give me an answer as to where that $10 million has gone. I can tell you the projects it has been earmarked for. I can tell you that $3 million was allocated for the transfer of the ANI Commonwealth steel to Kooragang Island. But that will not be proceeding now. That was announced in September 1997. To date, not one cent of that money has been spent, not one job has been created—nor will it be. I can tell you that $2 million of that fund was allocated to Forgacs Shipyard to upgrade their shipyard at Tomago and to dredge the channel from the port of Newcastle up the Hunter River to Tomago where that shipyard is. I can tell you that that was allocated in December of 1997 and not one dollar has been spent nor one job created. I can tell you that $600,000 was allocated for a Newcastle stock exchange. It has not gone ahead. I can tell you that $1½ million was allocated for a heavy vehicle interchange. After that was announced—with all the fanfare and brouhaha and a visit by the then minister for transport to the region to announce it because it was getting pretty close to election time—I can tell you that a couple of weeks later they said, `Now we have to do an EIS to see if we need it. We have to do a feasibility study to see if it's a goer.' Of the $1½ million that has been allocated, not a penny has been spent.I can also tell you that $1.4 million was allocated for a glassworks. It was a consortium of Chinese and Australian interests. That was about 12 months ago. Since then, there has been disagreement over who was going to have the major share, so they are in disarray and it will not be going ahead. Of that $10 million that was allocated to save jobs in the Hunter region, not one dollar spent, not one job created, and the Prime Minister does not know why. If ever there was $10 million that was put up to fob off the workers of the Hunter, it was that fund. I think it is an absolute disgrace that there was no minister—not necessarily the Prime Minister—of this government there to monitor it, to make sure that jobs were created. I can tell you for certain that the steelworks will close next year and that 3,000 people will not have a job.From the actions of this government, no-one could care less. It will go completely unnoticed if it is left entirely to this government. I can promise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will not allow it to go unnoticed. I will remind the government at every opportunity of what their obligation is to the people of the Hunter and what their obligation is to ensure that industry does go there and jobs are created.I indicated earlier that wealth that is generated in regions should stay in regions. I find it completely abhorrent that, in a region such as the Hunter that generates 85 per cent of the state's electricity, the headquarters of that organisation is not located where the workers exist, where the coal is mined, where the generating capacity is. With a region that produces so much of Australia's wealth through coalmining, I find it ridiculous that we have a federal government that does not have a policy on the pricing of coal, that allows multinational corporations that own our mines to compete with each other to artificially drive down the price of coal.It is a well-known fact that Australian coal is priced so low not because of international competition but because large mining companies are competing with large mining companies to drive out the small Australian owned operators. And this government sits idly by and allows it to happen. It is immoral and it is wrong. Until we get a change in government we will not have a minister or a government that is concerned about issues such as these.I indicated earlier that I am not a National Party member. I am very proud to be a member of the Labor Party. It is interesting to sit here after some time on the sidelines and look at those opposite. I must admit that I recognise most of the faces, when they are here, and I realise that only three short years ago they were sitting on this side of the chamber. At that time we did not perceive any real talent there and, I must admit, looking at them from this side, we still do not. I cannot understand how it happened that they were transferred from here to there.However, I can tell you that, having listened to the speeches of the new crop of the Labor Party today, I have no doubt that, after the next election, I will be very proud to serve in the first Beazley government. I have no doubt that those people that made their first speeches today will be elevated. They will be very good representatives and they will be representing the will, the desire, of Australians to make sure that they have a government that is concerned about the people of this great country and not simply about the bottom line that looks after the investments of multinational corporations. If there was a message that came out of the last election it was that the people of Australia want to see a government that governs for people and not for dollars.19:02:00174Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The member for Paterson blows in here as a new member and seems to forget, conveniently, the past in this place and seems to forget why the government changed three years ago. Are you in here tonight supporting the notion that we go back to debt and deficit?Mr Tuckey interjecting—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Does he? He lost—Mr Bevis interjecting—HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—So he does remember. Thanks, Mr Bevis. So you want to go back to deficit. Is that what you are proud of? You want to go back to the highest interest rates this country has seen. You want to go back to the highest unemployment this country has seen. Or would you prefer a government that delivers interest rates that are the lowest since man walked on the moon? Do you know what that does for people who own homes in your electorate? Do you know what the benefit is to them—ordinary Australians who have had what is the equivalent of a tax cut, which is more than a government could ever deliver? I can tell you that I am proud to support the Howard government. I will continue to stand up for the economy that this country has been delivered by the Howard government.Tonight I wish to place on record, following my re-election to the House of Representatives, the thanks to my family—to my wife, Margaret, to my son, Mark, and to my daughter, Kylie—the thanks to my staff—Mike Wells, Christine Paul and Greg Doolan, who have worked so hard over the last three years; the thanks to my campaign manager, David Moore—and the thanks to the staff of Ian Macdonald—and to Ian and Lesley Macdonald—to Liza Albion, Phil Connole, Paul Randall and Emelia Verzeletti; and also to the many volunteers who worked with me during the campaign, including Lynn Richardson, Ted and Marion Barrington, Rod and Kathy Girvan, Steve Ison, and so on.Mr Deputy Speaker, I suffered an absolutely ferocious campaign. The Treasurer in his question time answer this afternoon alluded to the kind of thing that occurred. I had the local Labor candidate spending—and I am advised by the Labor Party—$60,000 of his own money, above and beyond the national campaign, putting advertisements on television in every commercial break saying `Everything will go up 10 per cent' and `Do not vote for the coalition'. That was just dishonest and deceitful and he suffered because of it.The Treasurer this afternoon and the media tonight have reported quite accurately that the Labor Party have been very severely embarrassed in relation to their advertisements late in the campaign about the household expenditure survey, suggesting that the government was being dishonest about that. The media have tonight reported the facts. They have reported that the government was, in fact, honest with the Australian people. It did lay out in quite some detail, and truthful detail, the impact of the GST in terms of the CPI. In fact, the government has been more than generous in its compensation in that regard. I leave that to the Australian people to judge. I am glad to see that the government has got off very well on the front foot in the first sitting day of the 39th Parliament.I thought, when I stood in this chamber back in 1996, that little else in life would be able to top that moment—when you first stand up in this House to make your mark as a member of parliament. That first speech was special. I am sure that every member, past and present, would agree. But I have come to appreciate that indeed every time one rises to speak in the House of Representatives is just as special.We have heard a lot said about mandates, including in the speech by the member for Paterson, since 3 October, particularly from the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition. Labor claims that they have a mandate to oppose tooth and nail the plan for fundamental tax reform that the coalition parties took to the Australian people on election day. They seem to be basing that claim on the fact that they secured the most primary votes.That might be true, but it is not the way the electoral system in this country works. The Australian people had their say on 3 October. Our electoral system, the same system that I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition defend and praise on a number of occasions, delivered the task of leading our nation to the Liberal and National coalition government. I clearly recall the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke to the Constitutional Convention Bill 1997, defending our electoral system. He said:The secret ballot is known globally as `the Australian ballot'. It is the Australian ballot that has come to mark the peculiar contribution of the Australian nation to the democratic process internationally. That reputation has stood us in enormous good stead over time.Indeed, it has. But what we are now seeing from the Australian Labor Party is an attempt to hedge their bets. You cannot stand here and defend the Australian electoral system, as the Leader of the Opposition did, but reject the outcome of that process. Either you accept the decision of the Australian people or you do not. I believe that the Australian people have clearly put their position in front of the nation. Labor simply cannot have an each-way bet in this debate. The coalition took the issue of comprehensive tax reform to the Australian people, including the introduction of the broad based goods and services tax, and we were returned to office. That is the Australian ballot the Leader of the Opposition has defended in the past. That is the way it works.It is an honour and a privilege to have been re-elected to be the representative of the electorate of Herbert in the federal parliament. With this privilege goes great responsibility that I do not take for granted. Indeed, I am reminded of some of the words of Abraham Lincoln:I do the very best I know how—the very best I can; and I mean to keep on doing it until the end.I gave a commitment during the election campaign to be a tireless representative of Townsville and Thuringowa and I will deliver on that commitment, doing the very best I know and the very best I can.In my first speech to the parliament in May 1996, I described Townsville as the brightest star in Australia. That year, Townsville was named Australian community of the year. I also described Townsville as a city on the move and increasingly becoming a centre of economic growth and industrial development. I also said back in 1996 that Townsville would be one of the fastest growing regional centres in Australia. It is now November 1998 and while the honour of being named Australia's community of the year has moved on to another deserving centre, as it does each year, the bright star that is the twin cities of Townsville and Thuringowa continues to shine. It is still shining with a brilliance that is undiminished and it will continue to burn brightly well into the future.Not only are the Townsville and Thuringowa communities on the move, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are picking up speed. It is good news and the investors in this country ought to take notice of what is happening in the northern region, in the capital of northern Australia. Townsville is emerging as a major centre for industry and trade. Back in 1996 the Sun Metal zinc refinery existed only on paper. Today it is a plan that is rapidly becoming a reality, the third major minerals refiner in the city along with copper and nickel. More than 1,000 employees have clocked up more than a million working hours on the refinery's construction site. It is the largest investment a Korean company has made in this period outside Korea—and it is in Townsville. Everywhere you look in Townsville and Thuringowa there is new development going on. Early indications are, at this stage, that those sorts of developments are going to act as a beacon for other major investments in Townsville in the years to come.A further catalyst for new investment and industry will be the establishment of a base load power station in Townsville. It is vital that this proposed station go ahead, fed by a gas pipeline coming down from New Guinea or one coming across Queensland from Roma. I see this as being critical to Townsville's development, not only as a major economic centre in North Queensland but also as a doorway to the Asia-Pacific region. Townsville does have that long-term potential but to realise the potential, to attract new valueadded minerals processing industries, Townsville requires that base load power station. It requires water supply. It requires the neces sary land and the necessary expertise. All of that is being put in place now.But, while it is good and well to talk about the industrial potential of Townsville and Thuringowa, at the same time we cannot afford to become a so-called Newcastle of the north—it is a pity that the member for Paterson did not stay to listen to this speech—for that is not a desirable outcome. We enjoy a lifestyle in Townsville that is second to none. Local personality Steve Price's play on the acronym GST as standing for `Great Spot Townsville' really does say it all, much in the same way as I often refer to myself as the `Member for Paradise'. I would not trade Townsville for quids, which is why I say we cannot afford to let industrial growth and development spoil the tropical lifestyle we enjoy in our little patch of paradise.The Townsville I want to see in the years to come is a city where you can build a complete life and a home. I want Townsville to be a place where our kids can grow up, go to school and university and ultimately find employment in a full range of occupations and professions. New industry opportunities are important but Townsville cannot solely rely on industrial development for the future. Townsville also needs to work towards developing as a smart centre for technical development research. Economic diversity is critical and our broad based economy at the moment with commerce, industry, education, defence, communications, minerals processing and so on augurs well for the future development of our city.Earlier this year in this chamber I stated I would not rest until funding for a JCU medical school had been secured. I recall threatening to sit outside the Prime Minister's office every day while I was in Canberra until the money was committed. I did not need to. I was able to successfully argue for the medical school after Labor had promised it for the last 20 years. I was able to deliver a medical school for James Cook University, the first new medical school in Australia for many decades. The fight for a North Queensland medical school has been a coordinated team effort and, now that we have secured that commitment from the government, promises need to be translated into action. We have been fighting for a medical school for many years. It is a matter of urgency for North Queensland that this medical school get up and running as soon as possible. Queensland Health recently referred to the establishment of the JCU medical school as a long-term proposition. I do not accept that. It is not a long-term proposition. If we are made to wait any longer than necessary North Queenslanders will end up paying for that delay with their health.The capital funding commitment by the Howard coalition government is on the table, as is the commitment to new medical student places. Clearly, the federal government's will is there to turn this plan into a reality. Unless the Beattie government knows something that we do not, the only remaining hurdle is for the Australian Medical Council to give accreditation to a new undergraduate medical school. I would like to see James Cook University have their first intake of medical students in the year 2000, and I strongly support the course being an undergraduate medical course.I say to the Queensland Minister for Health: stop worrying about the federal government's commitment to a medical school and start concentrating on delivering a full undergraduate medical course for Townsville. Our commitment to the James Cook University medical school was locked in place during the recent federal election campaign and remains firmly locked in place. Wendy Edmond ought to get her priorities right and start backing what is best for Townsville and North Queensland. There would be a riot in the north if the federal government were to break their commitment on the medical school, and I would be leading that charge. But I know that that funding is in place and that we will go forward.The medical school is critical to help attract doctors and health professionals to regional North Queensland centres. While the north makes up about 45 per cent of Queensland's total area and about 20 per cent of its population, we are only home to about nine per cent of the registered medical practitioners in the state. More than 75 per cent of Queensland's medical specialists live in the south-east corner of the state. Meanwhile, it is almost impossible to attract GPs to rural and regional centres and, even in the major cities of Mackay, Townsville and Cairns, it is very hard for our doctors to attract locums so that they can have a break.As I have said before in this House, the problem of attracting and holding doctors and medical services in rural and regional areas demands practical, long-term solutions. A James Cook University undergraduate medical school is such a solution because, if you train doctors in rural and regional areas, they are more likely to stay in those rural and regional areas.Townsville also has a strong reputation in the field of marine science and management, and that is something that I was proud to be associated with in the last election campaign. I want to see a marine science centre of excellence developed in Townsville city. There is an enormous window of opportunity for that project. It could be a win-win situation in many different areas. It all started with the realisation that the Australian Institute of Marine Science down at Cape Ferguson, about 40 kilometres south of Townsville, needs major refurbishment to its buildings. About $11 million was provided in the last budget to have that refurbishment done. Also, when the staff go to AIMS each day, they have to be ferried at Commonwealth expense, and it costs about half a million dollars to get those staff down to their place of work and back each day.I think that, if we move AIMS back to Townsville and spend the money on new buildings in Townsville, we will be able to save that large transport expense. But, at the same time, another window of opportunity has arisen. We could perhaps co-locate other elements of marine science in Townsville at that location, for example, the Reef CRC at James Cook University and also the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. There is no intention at this stage that, if that project goes ahead as I wish it to, we would in any way put all of those organisations together—there would be no rationalisation of resources. But there are major benefits in co-locating. For example, a central library could be invoked or a centralised computer system connection to super computers throughout Australia could occur on that site. We would see a marine science centre of excellence established.Then the location became an interesting decision, and the choice really came down to two. The site that I favour is at Jezzine Barracks in North Ward in Townsville, a site currently occupied by 11 Brigade, an element of the Australian Army. 11 Brigade wants to move from Jezzine Barracks out to Lavarack Barracks to be with the regular forces. The men of 11 Brigade want to move, so here is an opportunity to use an existing site in Commonwealth ownership to establish a new marine science centre of world excellence. We would have a win-win situation: we would get the marine science centre and the members of 11 Brigade would be happy. But we would have another win: that site would be held in Commonwealth ownership and that would ensure that the historical nature of the site, particularly the forts, would be preserved forever with full public access. I think that, from the RSL's point of view and from the point of view of the historians in Townsville, that is a great idea as well. I strongly support that marine science centre of excellence being brought to Townsville in these terms as soon as possible.Currently, James Cook University's marine science department enjoys being a leader in marine science in the world. We will build on that. Already other opportunities are opening up. United Nations marine science is likely to co-locate in Townsville. That brings further opportunities for technical development, scientific development and jobs. I certainly will do my part in that regard.I have mentioned the ADF. I have Australia's largest defence base in my electorate. I have a very significant RAAF component as well. There is a lot of work to be done in relation to that. I certainly strongly support the redevelopment of stage 2 of Lavarack Barracks, and then we will move on to stage 3. Stage 2 will cost $139 million. Stage 3 will cost $154 million. Of course, there is also the redevelopment of RAAF Townsville—new ordnance loading areas and redevelopment of the base—so there is perhaps another $90 million there. All up, with expenditure of about $500 million a year through the ADF in Townsville and half a billion of capital works, it is not a bad investment by the federal government in my city of Townsville and Thuringowa. I will continue to support the ADF as I have done in the past.I was very privileged to meet the new brigadier who will be taking over 3 Brigade early next year, Brigadier Mark Evans. He will do a fine job replacing Brigadier Peter Leahy.If I might be so bold as to put this on the public record, I think perhaps we might see Brigadier Peter Leahy, who has just finished his tour of duty in Townsville, as CDF. He is such a good quality person. I thank Mr Bevis for his support of that particular thought.I look forward to another three years in this place, and I certainly intend to work as hard as I can for my electorate of Townsville.Debate (on motion by Mr Bevis) adjourned.Adjournment178Motion (by Mr Tuckey) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.17819:23:00178Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, firstly, I would like to congratulate you and the Speaker on being elevated to the positions that you currently hold. I wish you both well in the forthcoming parliament.In this adjournment debate, I would like to raise an issue that I have spoken about on several occasions previously: the provision of funding for the construction of the Western Sydney orbital road system. This road system would link the National Highway to Canberra and Melbourne with the F3 Freeway to Newcastle and Brisbane. In 1993, the then Commonwealth government announced its intention to connect the National Highway at points north and south of Sydney. The Western Sydney orbital would then become part of the National Highway system, as well as being a vital part of Sydney's major road network.The greater Western Sydney area has a population of 1.6 million. It has a gross national product of $35 million and produces 10 per cent of the agricultural output of New South Wales, but it does not have one freeway-standard cross-regional road. The region has a large and growing youth population and needs to provide educational, health, recreational and employment opportunities for this section of our population. While not exclusive of other needs of the Western Sydney community, it is nevertheless of the highest priority.Western Sydney has absorbed the largest proportion of Sydney's residential development since 1970. The availability of public services and facilities has not expanded sufficiently to serve the growing demands of the region. Western Sydney has been disadvantaged by the poor provision of employment and cultural opportunities and poor access to these limited opportunities. There are around 600 jobs per 1,000 people in Western Sydney compared with around 1,200 jobs for 1,000 people in eastern Sydney. People in Western Sydney have had to rely more than other Sydney people on the use of private vehicles because of a lack of decent and regular public transport alternatives.With Sydney's population expected to increase to almost 4.5 million within the next two decades, it is anticipated that half of Sydney's future housing needs will be met in newly developed areas that are available in Western Sydney. To meet existing and future demands, the construction of the Western Sydney orbital road system is now extremely urgent.The existing road network out from Sydney's CBD is radial and lacks cross-regional links between employment zones and regional centres. High levels of congestion are increasingly being experienced on existing road networks. Roads such as the M4, M5 and Cumberland Highway are Western Sydney's major freight corridors. The capacity of the M4 has already been reached, with 4,200 vehicles at peak hour traffic time.This congestion is threatening the competitiveness of industry and commerce located in greater Western Sydney due to insufficient freight movements and longer transport times. The construction of the Western Sydney orbital would overcome these problems by improving access to employment, educational, cultural and retail facilities in Western Sydney by reducing travelling time and transport costs. The Western Sydney orbital would also redirect regional traffic away from residential centres, thus reducing local traffic congestion, noise and pollution.Interregional traffic would be removed from roads fronted by homes, schools, child-care centres, nursing homes and hospitals, and the general community would benefit from the quieter conditions. The New South Wales RTA has estimated that there would be a considerable reduction in regional road traffic, ranging from 10 per cent to 45 per cent, with the construction of the Western Sydney orbital.In its May 1995 budget, the previous Labor government committed $260 million to commence the construction of the first stage of the orbital between Preston and Cecil Park. Construction was to start in 1996. Additionally, in August 1995, the federal Minister for Transport, the member for Kingsford-Smith, committed $220 million for the second stage of the orbital between Cecil Park and the M4 at Eastern Creek. Construction was to start in 1998. The then federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the former member for Hume, announced in November 1996 that the Commonwealth government would set aside only $109 million over the following four years for the Western Sydney orbital. However, no funding was set aside for this project in the 1997 budget. I expect better results in next year's budget.17919:28:00179Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—Mr Speaker, let me congratulate you very sincerely on your appointment. Today we have heard many speeches from the new members of this parliament. From the opposition we have heard speeches of care and concern that are warming to the heart of those who hear them. It would make us think that the branches that select these members are places that you would want to visit, full of friends and companionship, and good examples of democracy.Today I was horrified to come across a letter that an ALP member had written to all branch members in South Australia about what really happens in ALP branches. I suspect, Mr Speaker, that you will be as distressed as I was to hear what this man had to say about the ALP branches. I can give you his name: Mr Ron Williams, a member of an ALP subbranch. Mr Williams refers to the `machine'. He says:What is the "Machine"?The "Machine" is the term used to describe the current coalition between the Bolkus Social Left faction and the Right's Labor Unity faction.This is, of course, Mr Speaker, in our state of South Australia. He continues:It is led by a handful of powerful Left/Right Union Bosses and several senior State and Federal Members of Parliament.Mr Williams continues:So what is so dangerous about the "Machine"?The "Machine" is dangerous because it has almost total control over every level of decision making process within the South Australian Labor Party.This includes nearly all Sub Branch and FEC delegates to State Council and State Convention, membership of the state Executive and the State Platform Committee and other Party Committees, Party Office Positions, Parliamentary Caucus and the Shadow Cabinet. Even Mike Rann's position as leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party is based on the "Machine's" continuing support . . . However, because factions tend to be secretive about their operations, particularly at the sub branch and FEC level, most rank and file members are not even aware that their branch/FEC is aligned.Poor members. He continues:For example, the "Machine" factions carve up the sub branches and FECs between them and then support each other's candidates for delegate positions to State Convention and State Council and all other Party Committees. The "Machine" uses this lack of knowledge of its operations by grass roots members—again, poor members—to ensure their delegates are elected and thereby maintain its grip on power. Without the support of the "Machine" it is now virtually impossible for a rank and file member to be elected to a position of power or influence within the ALP. Fear of either losing support for a party position, being labelled a "spoiler", or having a political career cut dead is enough to keep most faction members in line. . . . It takes real courage to stand up to the "Machine" heavies and their venom.He goes on to talk about how the members are elected:. . . most sub branch delegates are picked and supported by the "Machine" faction bosses and therefore have the financial and material backing of unions and certain Parliamentary offices to promote themselves. Most union delegates to convention have been hand-picked by the Union bosses. Union rank and file members have little or no say in their selection and are unlikely to even know who they are.In the lead-up to sub branch elections for Convention and Council delegates hundreds of "new" members are enrolled and their membership fees paid for by the "Machine" factions to ensure "Machine" candidates have the numbers to get elected (known—my goodness—as branch stacking). Most of these "new" members will never go to a sub branch meeting or help at the polling booths at election time.So, even though the "Machine" can claim to represent 80% of the Convention . . .I will shortly be out of time, so I will just sum up what Mr Williams said:The whole apparatus of ALP party machinery is controlled by the Party State office, itself controlled by the "Machine" factions.I believe the stranglehold the "Machine" currently has over the South Australian Labor Party is so damaging that it is vital it be brought to the attention of the rank and file . . . Every ALP member has the right to know how the "Machine" operates and the disastrous impact it is having on the Party.I repeat an earlier sentence:It takes real courage to stand up to the "Machine" heavies and their venom.That, I hate to say, is about the Labor Party in our state of South Australia.18019:33:00180Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I am glad the member for Hindmarsh came forward in the way she did, because I do not believe any attempt she has tried to make at cheap political point scoring could possibly take away the glory of what has occurred in this parliament today. In my 31 years in the ALP, and 27 of those active in all levels of government, I do not believe I have ever experienced, as I experienced today, hearing such brilliant speeches as I heard from the members for Gellibrand, Fowler, Lalor, Chisholm, Cowan, Charlton, Shortland, Sydney, Bass, Rankin and Griffith, as well as welcome back to the members for the Northern Territory and Paterson. No wonder the member for Hindmarsh thought she had to come in here and paraphrase some poor written letter from somebody in South Australia, a disgruntled member of the Labor Party.Mrs Gallus interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Hindmarsh will not interject while out of her chair.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I can tell the member for Hindmarsh that I can start relating some home truths on what happened in my electorate, which I gratefully appreciate for returning me as the member for Prospect. The Liberal candidate who ran against me was brought in from Cherrybrook, a long way from Fairfield and Prospect. I had to give her a map so she could find her way around. They could not find a local candidate to stand up against me.So what happened? We had, during the term of the election, the first Assyrian born mayor just completing his term in Fairfield. He is the first Assyrian born mayor throughout Australia. This Liberal candidate turned up to a citizenship ceremony and said, `I am here representing the minister for immigration.' Councillor Khoshaba, being the courteous man he is, allowed her to speak. He did graciously say to her, `Please, if you do come again, we would like to be informed by the minister's office or at least by you that you will be here to do it.'On 16 September, his last citizenship ceremony before the new mayor, Councillor Chris Bowen, was elected, this `lady' turned up at the council chambers demanding to speak. The mayor graciously said, `Excuse me, we have not heard from your minister nor have we heard from you that you are to represent him.' She then continued to parade in front of 168 candidates who were proudly taking out citizenship of this country and put on an act, demanding that the mayor let her speak. This is the Liberal candidate who ran in the seat of Prospect. She then started to hit the mayor with his speech; she whacked him physically with that speech. He pulled that speech away from her and put it on the ground. She climbed up on the mayor's podium and got under his legs to retrieve that speech. She was then asked to desist and leave the council chambers.So do not come, as the member for Hindmarsh did, mealy-mouthed trying to have a go at what the Labor Party machine is not about. I am telling you that this was a candidate preselected on behalf of the Liberal Party to run for this high federal office, and these are the antics that we have to put up with in electorates such as mine. I want to congratulate that mayor, Councillor Khoshaba, for his previous 12 months of a job well done. I also want to commend and congratulate him on the way in which he handled that function on that particular evening. He is a gentleman, and he certainly proved himself in his 12 months of his term as mayor of our city. I know that he wrote to the minister, very upset. I understand the reply he has received from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs upset him even more. Really this is not a person who normally complains. I am actually pleased I was not there that night, because I can assure you that the mayor would not have had to require assistance to remove my opposition candidate; I would have been removing her for him.Nevertheless, today 13 brilliant speeches were made from this opposition. What the coalition were disturbed about and I believe what the coalition now are worried about is the depth of talent that we have now got on our benches. I believe we have witnessed today, as I said at the very beginning, some of the most brilliant speeches that I have heard in all of my years in politics. I commend and I congratulate those people. I commend and congratulate the electors who have elected people of that calibre to serve in this parliament. I know that each one of them, both individually and collectively, will do it well. They will not have to rely on paraphras ing some mealy-mouthed letter that the member for Hindmarsh got hold of that had been circulated probably by some candidate in the area who had been a bit upset about what is happening to the Labor Party in that state. I am not denying that what she was reading out was factual, but what I am saying is not to ever try to bring that sort of an example in here, because each one of us sitting on the opposition benches can give you example after example of some of the so-called opponents that we had to put up with in our years of political fray.I believe what we should be about in this parliament is praising. Certainly as an opposition we are here to criticise, as the government is here to deliver. It is always much easier to deliver, and I suppose you could say it is much easier for us to criticise. But I believe that we should note that on a day like this, on Remembrance Day, 13 brilliant speeches were given by the people sitting on the opposition benches, people who are proudly members of the Labor Party. All of us should be up here now commending and congratulating them. That is what we should be about, saying to them, `What a job well done.' There should not be cheap political point scoring, as has just been rendered by the member for Hindmarsh. I do not believe she has brought credit to her government, nor do I believe she has brought credit to her constituency.This was not what I originally intended to say. I can only say in closing that I thank my electors of Prospect for returning me to this parliament. (Time expired)18119:38:00181Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Mr Speaker, it is a delight to be able to congratulate you on your elevation to high office. I know that you will discharge that with great authority and have regard for all members in this place.I rise tonight to address a number of matters in relation to the Australian Labor Party's quite shameful conduct with regard to the private health insurance rebate of 30 per cent. The government has had this on the table for several months and proposed it quite clearly as part of its re-election platform. More to the point, the government proposed it quite clearly because, after so many years of deliberate winding back on matters relating to private health insurance by those opposite, there is finally a government in place that is determined to provide the incentive that everyday Australians need in order to stay attached to private health insurance or to get reinvolved with private health insurance.It is pitiful in the extreme that, as a member of the House of Representatives, I have to sponsor a petition in my electorate to the President and the senators in the other place drawing their attention to the need to encourage participation in private health insurance, to allow individuals freedom of choice and to maintain a viable health system and urging them to pass without further delay the government's proposals and measures. I do so knowing that the shadow minister for health, the member for Jagajaga, who was the architect of the great scare campaign which upset so many older Australians in my electorate and right throughout this nation—based without any fact, just simply on her perception and her salesmanship alone—and frightened so many people around this country, is now saying, particularly to older Australians, `You are not going to get your 30 per cent rebate.'It is an absolute outrage that what she is saying to people in my electorate of Moreton very clearly is, `Go back on the queue at the public hospitals; go back and stand in line and wait and take your chances.' It is a pitiful development in this nation that people in my electorate who are on a pension and who would be looking forward to $400 or $600 a year assistance to stay in private health insurance are now finding that particular measure under threat as a result of the ALP.It is of course consistent with the Labor Party stand over many years, and we all struggle for consistency in this game. We have heard from the member for Hindmarsh tonight about some of the factional wheelings and dealings of the Australian Labor Party and its machine, but when that factional heavyweight and former Senator Richardson in one of his columns says, `Labor's always been a bit biased against private health insurance,' we see it being realised here again in 1998. We remember the mini-budget the Hawke government brought in in 1983, one of the very first things the Labor government elected in 1983 did was cancel the private health insurance rebate scheme that the Fraser government had operating. They set out deliberately to unpick private health insurance.This is all about some sort of classless war. It is a pathetic situation. We have the former Prime Minister and member for Blaxland Paul Keating not taking out private health insurance—on $150,000 a year—but not contributing something towards taking the pressure off public hospital queues in this nation, preferring instead to demand his place ahead of so many others in the public system when he could have afforded private health insurance.While we have had this day of new members on both sides giving first speeches, and they have been interesting to hear, it is worth knowing that the returned members opposite fall into a pattern, as the editorial in the Australian noticed a few weeks ago when it said, `The shadow ministry announced by Mr Beazley was weighed down by old faces and gave few opportunities to potential members in a Labor government.' The member for Werriwa said on lagging policy development, `In April 1996 Kim Beazley said to me that Australian Labor was falling 10 years behind comparable parties in our policy development and our ideas.' That was the case then, but the member for Werriwa said on 20 October on the 7.30 Report, `We have probably got as much ground to make up now.'I make those points because it seems to me that those opposite have to get out of this classless war and get behind the government's private health insurance rebate. It is what people in my electorate want. It is what people in Australia want. It is one of the many things they voted for on 3 October and those opposite who deliberately try to stall things for some political point scoring game have to stop and change their approach. (Time expired)18319:43:00183Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I am very pleased, and indeed honoured, to be returned to this House by the electors of Canberra. Last time around, in 1996, I came in as the new member for a new seat called Namadgi created following a redistribution. Following the 1996 election, a redistribution again occurred, as many of us in this place have experienced in the past and I am sure will in the future, and but for just over 600 people the ACT would have retained that new additional seat. However, as history shows, that was not the case and we went back to two seats in the ACT—Canberra and Fraser.I thank the members of the ACT Australian Labor Party for giving me this opportunity by endorsing me this time for the seat of Canberra. With this redistribution I now represent the most populous electorate in Australia, with 104,968 voters enrolled as at the close of rolls. For the information of the House, in this respect the seat of Canberra is closely followed by the seat of Northern Territory and Fraser in the ACT.I am extremely proud to represent the people of Canberra in this place. The ACT supported me and my colleague the member for Fraser in the ACT at the recent federal election with a two party preferred vote of 62.44 per cent. In the seat of Canberra, the two party preferred vote was 60.06 per cent, a result of which I am obviously very pleased.The Canberra community is often referred to as a Labor town. That is very easy to say, and it is very easy for our opponents to use it as an excuse for a poor vote. But that is also arrogant. I have never used that phrase and intend never to use it. It was not so long ago that that so-called Labor town reacted very strongly against us on this side of the House at that fairly infamous Canberra by-election of 1995. To take any community for granted by labelling it in such a way is folly. As candidates and members, we must work with and for our communities to earn their respect, to learn about and understand them and, most importantly, to not take them for granted. I have worked hard and honestly on behalf of my community and will continue to do so, despite its now large numbers. I look forward to that challenge and to doing all I can to counter the unfortunate, continuing effects of the policy decisions of this government that so adversely affect this community.My dismay at the announcement by the Prime Minister of his continuing refusal to live in the Prime Minister's residence, The Lodge, was deep. The Australian community pays regard to Canberra as the national capital, and the ACT community is proud of its role in living in, supporting and being part of that role. Why can't this obviously stubborn man see the level of insult he continues to pay both the Australian community and the local one with his continuing decision in this regard?I want to thank most sincerely the electors of the seat of Canberra for placing their faith in me and in the Australian Labor Party. I give them an assurance of my dedication to the task and look forward to working with them over this term of parliament. I want to record my thanks to my staff, who have worked long and tirelessly over the whole 2½ years of my first term. They have helped me enormously. My thanks to my campaign team, including Michael Cooney, the campaign director; Jim Mallett, the Electorate Committee chair; all executive and other members of that EC; the members of the ALP sub-branches in my electorate; the many volunteers who came into our team with great enthusiasm and commitment; my family, who at a distance offered their ongoing support; and those many community groups with whom I have a close association as patron, member and supporter.When the Prime Minister and his colleagues boast of their so-called mandate, I encourage them to look carefully at the results of this election. The Prime Minister, in 1996, said he would govern for all Australians, and then continued down a path of division, confrontation and fear for many people. He should wonder, for just a moment, why so many lost faith in him and his policies.To tell us, since this election, of his so-called rebirth and then to immediately follow it with a reversal on the decision to accept Senator Colston's vote and, more recently, to embark on a path of destruction for Centrelink puts a chill in my spine. Here we go again.I welcome all those new members to this House, particularly all of these new women. I really look forward to working with them during this term, to supporting them and to us working together to put the Beazley team in place for government next term. (Time expired)18419:48:00184Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. I am sure that you will show great authority and fairness in your role as Speaker. I would also like to make mention of this special Remembrance Day, which is the 80th anniversary of the end of World War I. It is a very special day, not only for veterans of all wars but for everyone in the Australian community. I was very pleased to see the number of people, particularly young people, who took part in Remembrance Day ceremonies today or who just paused for a minute at 11 a.m. to remember those veterans, because without the sacrifices that veterans have made in all wars in Australia this parliament may not be in existence. The freedom that we have may not be part of Australian history now, and I certainly may not have had the opportunity to be elected as the member for Robertson.It is a great thrill, a great honour and a very humbling experience to be re-elected as a member of this great parliament. There is a lot of excitement when you are first elected to this House, and a lot of bewilderment in some ways. To be re-elected by the people of your community, who are saying that they believe in the job that you are doing, and to be part of a government that they believe is doing the right thing for this country is a very humbling experience. For my part, it has reinforced my determination to do what I can to highlight the needs and concerns of my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast of New South Wales. I believe it is one of the lucky areas of Australia. It is one of the areas that is growing rapidly, that has increasing exports and decreasing unemployment, and that can benefit very much from the government's policies in the next three years. So it has reinforced my determination to continue that work in Robertson.Another thing that I want to raise tonight is my concern about the delays of the New South Wales state government in implementing the electronic signage on the F3, which is the major freeway running from northern Sydney through my electorate to Newcastle. In the 1997-98 budget the federal government allocated $1.5 million, with a further $3.5 million to be earmarked in the forward estimates for the establishment of state-of-the-art electronic signage systems. The state government are matching that funding, but to date they have not proceeded as quickly as I would have liked with the implementation of those electronic signage systems, which will warn drivers, save lives and help decrease delays on the freeway by enabling drivers to take alternative routes or to be warned of stoppages.Even the member for The Entrance, Grant McBride, the parliamentary secretary, admitted that my complaints were justified and that the RTA had not moved quickly enough to get the project started. He now says that they are moving swiftly to implement the project. I do not believe it is a coincidence that nothing happened prior to the federal election. They have had over 12 months to start moving on this system, which is drastically needed. Not one thing seems to have been done prior to the federal election. Immediately after the federal election there seems to have been some rapid action. I do not believe it is a coincidence that there happens to be a New South Wales state election coming up next March. I am quite concerned that the state Labor government seems to have been dragging the chain on implementing this.I will be pleased to see, no matter what the delays have been, that this system is implemented as quickly as possible because the F3 freeway is one of the most heavily trafficked roads anywhere in Australia. Much of my electorate commutes to Sydney daily for work and it has now got to the stage where there are extensive delays, particularly on a Friday evening with the commuter traffic coupled with the weekend exodus from Sydney causing delays which, in turn, cause minor nose-to-tail accidents that then cause very long delays. With the implementation of this electronic signage system, many of those minor accidents could be avoided by warning drivers that delays are ahead and also giving them the opportunity to take the old Pacific Highway—the road that I helped open back in 1995. (Time expired)18519:53:00185Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your elevation to the high post that you now will, I am sure—how will I put this—handle with the aplomb for which you are renowned.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is very charitable of you, the member for the Northern Territory.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I am here tonight to talk about a very important issue to remote Aboriginal communities not only in my electorate but in other parts of Australia: the question of petrol sniffing. Petrol sniffing, as honourable members may know, has been a chronic activity amongst some young Aboriginal people in some remote communities around Australia. It has cost many lives over a period of years of young Aboriginal Australians. It is something which Aboriginal Australians have been trying to deal with, and they have come up with a number of strategies to so do. One of them has been a novel one—that is, to substitute full leaded petrol with avgas. Whilst avgas contains more lead than super petrol, it does not contain that hydrocarbon that gives the high that young Aboriginal petrol sniffers, and indeed older petrol sniffers, seek when they sniff petrol.I will just quickly refer to an item in the Medical Journal of Australia of 17 July 1995 that evaluates the strategies used by remote Aboriginal communities to eliminate petrol sniffing and which particularly goes to this question of avgas. As you will recall, Mr Speaker, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development on 1 July lifted the tax on avgas. At the same time, those people who used avgas as a substitute for petrol, where it is used for non-aviation sales, were informed that they had to pay a full lead tax, which would radically increase the price of the fuel. The excise duty was increased to 45.242c a litre, making it uneconomical for these communities that were using avgas as a substitute to purchase avgas as a substitute and deal with petrol sniffing as part of an overall strategy.The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs was made aware of this, as was the then Minister for Customs, Mr Truss, in August of this year. But, to date, there has been no satisfactory outcome to those discussions. I point out that, as recently as 30 October, a minute was sent to Dr Peter Tate of the Pintubi Homelands Health Service at Kintore in my electorate in which it was said that there were discussions going on between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Customs, Treasury, ATSIC and Health to discuss the matter in October.The fact is that their failure to deal with this issue expeditiously has the potential to cost lives. What I am concerned about is the inaction by this government in dealing with this matter and to come up with a solution that will provide those communities with the capacity to use avgas as a substitute for non-aviation purposes in their communities as a control mechanism for petrol sniffing. If they do not do it, if they cannot do something immediately—and I mean immediately—there is the potential for real harm to be done. The good Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, says he is concerned about Aboriginal health, but if he were really concerned about Aboriginal health he would have done something about this. He has not.This government needs to do something about this today. In fact, it should have done something about it yesterday. I am concerned because today I have had representations from Ngaanyatjarra Council in Western Australia—the community of Warburton. I have spoken to the Kintore Homelands Health Service in the last few days, and I have had representations from Aboriginal Congress in Alice Springs about this very matter in the last two weeks. It is going to hurt people if there is no remedy to this forthwith, and I ask, Mr Speaker, if you would pass the message on to the government that they ought to do something about this immediately.We need a solution today, and I ask them to make sure that those communities that are using avgas as a substitute are able to continue to use it at the old excise rate of 13c a litre, which is what they were being charged. That would make it economical. Any other mechanism, if they are asked to pay up-front and then get money back, is going to be too costly. They will not be able to afford to do it. They need to get this done today, and they need a concession made by this government immediately. Mr Vaile was able to do it on avgas tax to 1 July. They should be able to do it today with this one. (Time expired)18619:58:00186Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—In the short time I have available to me tonight I just want to make a few comments on the election result. Obviously, I am very proud of being one of a number of New South Wales marginal seatholders who were returned at the last election who played a very significant part in giving the government a workable majority again in parliament.There were many people who said that a number of us were swept into power on the anti-Keating factor and that they believed we would be swept out of power and out of our electorates at the next election. There was no shortage of members opposite who were prepared to tell me that. Well, most of us in New South Wales in marginal seats are back here doing the job for our constituents.I have noticed in this day in parliament that we have an opposition that are in denial. They believe that they should be in government. They have not come to terms with the fact that they are not in government, that they were not elected to government. Despite the full weight of the ALP party machine being thrown at me in Robertson, and despite the fact that I had a high-profile candidate in Labor's ex-senator Belinda Neal against me, the Labor Party could manage only a half per cent swing to them. Even with, as was described, an 800-pound gorilla in the GST on my back, they could manage only half a per cent. Yet they have not done any soul-searching, they have not done any questioning, as to why the people of Australia, and why the people of Robertson, have not supported them. They are sitting there saying, `Well, we should have won.' They are not looking at why they did not win and what they can do to contribute to this country.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the House stands adjourned.20:00:00186House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices186The following notices were given:Mr Sercombe to move—That this House notes:(1) the special relationship between Australia and Turkey, which developed out of mutual respect engendered by the horrific experiences of the First World War;(2) that Turkey is a modern, secular state with which Australia should further enhance relations;(3) the importance of Turkey as a trade and investment partner in its own right and as a base for Australian trade efforts in the Middle East and Central Asia;(4) the significant contribution of Turkish migration to Australia's economic, social and cultural development; and(5) that Turkish speaking residents of Australia have contributed significantly to the Australian community by their approach to potentially divisive issues that could undermine harmony in our multicultural society.Mr Reith to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996.Mr Downer to present a bill for an act to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, and for related purposes.Dr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to provide incentives for private health insurance, and for related purposes.Dr Wooldridge to present a bill for an act to amend the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1997, and for related purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Telstra Corporation Act 1991, and for other purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act about telecommunications, and for related purposes.Dr Kemp to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian National Training Authority Act 1992, and for other purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in relation to references in Acts to Ministers, and for related purposes.Mr Vaile to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and for related purposes.Mr Vaile to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Act 1993, and for related purposes.Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act for the protection of areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr McGauran to present a bill for an act to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997, and for related purposes.Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend certain Acts relating to superannuation, and for related purposes.Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to establish a Board to administer certain legislation relating to superannuation, and for related purposes.Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to enact saving and transitional provisions in consequence of the enactment of certain provisions of the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Act 1998.Mr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Act 1998, and for other purposes.Mr Slipper to move—That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of the Eastern Region Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown, NSW.Mr Slipper to move—That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley, Qld.Mr Anderson to move—That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 10 November 1998, namely: Erection of identification signs in front of Old Parliament House.Mrs Bronwyn Bishop to present a bill for an act to amend the Aged Care Act 1997.Documents187The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 November 1998:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Direction 1998 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (Conditions of Payment to Organisations).Report of the augmented review panel convened by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—Final boundary recommendations.Rules 1998 Regional Council Election Amendment (No. 2).Aged Care Act—Schedule of residential care services determined to be adjusted residential care services as at 1 October 1997.Air Force Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 290.Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 231. Archives Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 273.Australian Federal Police Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 232.Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Declarations of—Approved donor—21 August 1998.30 June 1998.7 July 1998.Industry marketing body 30 June 1998.Industry research body 30 June 1998.Orders—Nos. LC-1/98, LC2/98.Australian National University Act—Statute No. 256.Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act—Instrument fixing charges to be paid to APRA.Determination 1998 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Commonwealth Costs).Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 294.Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Determination 1998 Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Imposition.Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act—Instrument of approval of forms 12 October 1998.Cheques and Payment Orders Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 238.Christmas Island Act—Casino Control Ordinance—Direction 10 July 1998.Notice of cancellation of casino licence 28 July 1998.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part 105—Amendments 1998 5, 23 (2), 24, 25, 30 (3) June, 3 (2), 6 (2), 16, 17 (4), 24 (5), 26, 27 (4), 28 (7), 30 (2), 31 (5) July, 3, 5, 7 (2), 11, 13, 17, 19, 24 (4), 28 (3), 31 (7) August, 3, 4 (4), 11 (10), 16 (3), 18 (3), 22 (3), 23 (2), 25 (7) September, 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 13 (2), 14 (3), 15, 16 (3), 23 (23) October.Part 106—Amendments 1998 16, 20, 30, 31 (2) July, 24 (3), 28, 31 (2) August, 1, 25 September.Part 107—Amendments 1998 29 June, 3 (3), 27 (2), 29 July, 28 (2) August, 10, 25 September, 8, 14, 23 October.Part 20—Amendment 1998 19 October. Part 82—Amendment 1998 24 September.Parts 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108—Amendments 1998 28 September.Exemptions 1998 Nos. CASA 24, CASA 27, CASA 28, CASA 32, CASA 33, CASA 34, CASA 35, CASA 36, CASA 37, CASA 38, CASA 39, KSAAD.Instruments 1998 Nos. CASA 254, CASA 267, CASA 290, CASA 309, CASA 310, CASA 316, CASA 327, CASA 358, CASA 392, CASA 417.Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 234, 235, 236, 237, 288.Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 256.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Orders 1998.Notices under section 45—Commonwealth acquiring shares in Employment National Limited.Formation of four Commonwealth owned companies and disposal by the Commonwealth of all shares in, and ceasing to be a member of, three companies.Commonwealth Electoral Act and Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 296.Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 271.Corporations Act—Accounting Standards Nos. AASB 1001, AASB 1008, AASB 1016, AASB 1037.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 239, 293, 295.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 228, 229, 276, 278.Customs Act and Excise Act—Notice 1998 No. 1.Defence Act—Determinations 1998—Defence Force (Superannuation) (Productivity Benefit) (Amendment) No. 4.Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.Designs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 259.Endangered Species Protection Act—Declarations Nos. 98/ESP1, 98/ESP3, 98/ESP4, 98/ESP6. Excise Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 274, 275, 277.Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 233.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 248, 249, 270.Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 299.Federal Court of Australia Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 224, 297.Financial Management and Accountability Act—Financial Management and Accountability Orders (Amendment).Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 261, 289.Fisheries Management Act—Determination 1998 SBT Final TAC.Directions 1998 Nos. NPFD 21, NPFD 22.Temporary Order 1998 No. 1.General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Determination 1998 General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition.Health Insurance Act—Declaration 1998 No. QAA 1.Determinations 1998—Health Insurance (Pathology-Licensed Collection Centres) (No. 8).No. HS/1.Guidelines 1998 Health Insurance (Approval of Billing Agents) Amendment (No. 1).Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 253, 266, 268, 301, 302, 303.Higher Education Funding Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. T18, T19, T20, T21.Home and Community Care Act—Home and Community Care amending agreement with—New South Wales 1 July 1998.Victoria 12 August 1998.Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 279.International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 250, 251.Judiciary Act—Rule of Court 4 August 1998.Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 298.Lands Acquisition Act—Statement under section 40. Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Determination 1998 Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition.Live-stock Transactions Levy Act and National Residue Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats Transactions) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 254.Migration Act—Notices (5) under section 502.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 284, 285, 304, 305, 306.Statements under section 48B (8).Statements under section 417 (22).Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 282. Migration Agents Registration Renewal Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 283.Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Instrument 1998 Military Superannuation and Benefits Trust Deed (Amendment) No. 4.Motor Vehicle Standards Act—Determination 1998 Road Vehicle (National Standards) No. 1.Mutual Assistance in Business Regulation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 263.Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 292.National Environment Protection Council Act—National Environment Protection Council—National environment protection measure for—Ambient air quality.Movement of controlled waste between States and Territories.National Health Act—Declarations 1998 Nos. PB 14, PB 15, PB 17, PB 18, PB 19.Determinations 1998—Health Benefits Reinsurance (Records of Organisations).Nos. HIG 5, HIG 6, PB 16,PB 20.Instrument for the purposes of section 40AA 8 September 1998.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 262.Native Title Act—Determinations 1998—Native Title (Notices).Representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander Bodies Revocation (No. 1).Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 272, 281, 286.Naval Defence Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 230. Navigation Act—Marine orders 1998 Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 287.Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 300.Ozone Protection Act—Notices (7).Parliament Act—Parliamentary Zone—Proposal to erect identification signs in front of Old Parliament House.Parliamentary Entitlements Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 269.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 257, 264, 291.Payments System and Netting Act—Approvals of RTGS system 29 (2) October 1998.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act, National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 245.Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and provisions of Acts shall come into operation—Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment (Turnback of Cheques) Act 1998—Schedule 1, other than item 6, 22 July 1998.Cheques and Payment Orders Amendment Act 1988—Schedule 1, other than item 27 and items 70 to 82, and the items of Schedule 2 and 3, 1 December 1998.Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Amendment Act 1991—Section 10 and subsections 11 (2) and 13 (2), 22 June 1998.Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amendments) Act 1998—Schedule 1 (other than item 39), the items of Schedules 2 and 4 and the items of Schedule 3 (other than item 11), 24 July 1998.National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998—1 August 1998.National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998—1 August 1998.National Residue Survey Administration Amendment Act 1998—Schedules 2 and 3, 1 August 1998.Native Title Amendment Act 1998—Schedules 1, 2, 4 and 5 30 September 1998.Part 1 of Schedule 3 30 October 1998.Productivity Commission Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 255.Public Service Act— Determinations 1998 Nos. 16, 17, 18, FAT 6, FAT 9, FAT 10, FAT 11, FAT 12, FAT 13, FAT 14, FAT 15, LES 30, LES 31, LES 32, LES 33, LES 34, LES 35, LES 36, LES 37, LES 38, SESROB 55, SESROB 56, SESROB 57, SESROB 58, SESROB 59, SESROB 60, SESROB 61, SESROB 62, SESROB 63, SESROB 64, SESROB 65, SESROB 66, SESROB 67, SESROB 68, SESROB 69, SESROB 70, SESROB 71, SESROB 72, SESROB 73, SESROB 74, SESROB 75, SESROB 76, SESROB 77.Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination 1998 No. 1.Quarantine Act—Determination 1998 No. 2.Radiocommunications Act—Determinations 1998—Radiocommunications (C-Tick Mark).Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Broadcasting Licence) No. 1.Licence 1998 Radiocommunications (Communications with Space Object) Class.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations 1998 Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.Statement.Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Determination 1998 Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition.Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Notices 1998 Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15.Sales Tax Assessment Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. STD 4, STD 5, STD 6.Rulings 1998 Nos. SST 12, SST 13.Social Security Act—Determinations 1998Advance Payment of Entitlement (Waiver of Waiting Period) (No. 1).Youth Allowance (Activity Test Exemption Guidelines).Youth Allowance (Satisfactory Study Progress Guidelines).States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 280.Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 226.Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 225. Student Assistance Act—Notice 1998 Present Value of the Unpaid Amount—Annual Rate of Interest (No. 1).Superannuation Act 1976—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 242.Superannuation Act 1990—Declarations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 243, 244.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 240.Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Determination 1998 Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition.Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensations 1998 Nos. 6, 7, 8.Taxation Administration Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. TD 98/15 (Addendum), TD 98/16 (Addendum), TD 98/17, TD 98/18, TD 98/19, TD 98/20, TD 98/21, TD 98/22, TD 98/23, TD 98/24.Rulings 1998 Nos. PR 98/1, PR 98/2, TR 98/13, TR 98/14, TR 98/15, TR 98/16.Telecommunications Act 1997—Determinations—1998—Net Universal Service Cost Avoidable Costs.Nos. 1, 2.Technical standard No. TS 101.Instruments 1997—Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Scale of Damages (Amendment No. 2).Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Standard (Amendment No. 2).Instruments 1998—Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Notice Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) No. 2 of 1997 (1998 Amendment No. 1).Telecommunications (Interception) Act—Declaration 1998 Agency (Police Integrity Commission).Therapeutic Goods Act—Instrument of approval under section 6AA 13 July 1998.Instruments of approval under section 23AA 13 July, 17 September 1998.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 227, 247.Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 246, 260.Trade Marks Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 258, 265.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments 1998 Nos 8, 9, 10, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75.1998-11-11Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 3.30 p.m.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Allow me to welcome you all to the first meeting of the Main Committee of the 39th Parliament.Bills192r614Billsr615Billsr613BillsBills192Debate resumed.15:30:00192Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your election to the deputy speakership.The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Bill 1998 , the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1998 and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 establish the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, covering all Commonwealth agencies that undertake activities which raise radiation protection or nuclear safety issues. Given that we are debating them together, I will address all the issues at the one time.It was the previous Labor government that actually initiated the process to establish a satisfactory system for nuclear regulation in Australia and I am very pleased today to see that this process is finally coming to completion. The legislation also has roots in the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste whose April 1996 report was entitled No time to waste.These bills are of current importance because of two key decisions that Australia faces about the development of nuclear facilities. The first is the overdue decision on future provision of nuclear materials for medical and industrial purposes. The Lucas Heights reactor is reaching the end of its useful life and should cease operation by 2005. Whether a new reactor is built on the existing site or on a new site, or whether an alternative strategy is followed for production of nuclear materials, is a major issue. It is one on which the public has every reason to be concerned and a right to demand the fullest public debate.The second is the resolution of a site to store Australia's own radioactive wastes in a secure and acceptable manner. Whilst a framework has been developed, there is a lot of detail to be resolved. Australia has in the past relied on overseas facilities for a permanent solution to the problem of nuclear waste, but increasingly we are likely to find that these will not be available.It is critical that both these decisions are made within a regulatory framework that is soundly based on international best practice and that commands public respect. It will be no good if the government establishes a new agency but fails to take the necessary steps to ensure that the agency is credible. There is the need to be credible not just to the scientific and medical community, but also to those in the general public who have serious concerns about the spread of nuclear facilities and the widening application of radiation in our daily lives.I strongly support the establishment of a strong and credible national regulatory framework for the control of applications of radiation and nuclear materials for medical and scientific purposes. I believe the government and the opposition have similar views on most of the major issues and I do welcome the extent to which this bill has been improved since it was last debated.For example, the inclusion of clause 83 requires that the powers to be given under the bill can be exercised only in accordance with prescribed international obligations. However, I have received representations on a number of issues. One is that the legislation is not sufficiently transparent to public scrutiny. Others are that the standards that will be required could be inadequate and that the make-up of the committees does not include consumer and environmental representatives and could become unbalanced or insular over time.I am of the view that these concerns can best be addressed by amending the legislation in two areas to ensure that the new authority has credibility and independence. I would suggest that that could be done, firstly, by enshrining a requirement that the CEO have regard to best international practice in deciding whether to issue licences and, secondly, by ensuring that there is representation for a person with a consumer and environmental perspective on the important issues before each of the three new bodies is established.As far as best practice is concerned, the other major concerns that have been raised with me appear to be based on a worry that the authority will lag behind best practice in other countries and take refuge in less stringent standards adopted as part of international treaties. I have no doubt that the Australian public would wish our regulatory framework to be amongst the world's best and not be based on any `lowest common denominator' standards.At present the CEO's powers are very open-ended and subject only to regulation which could be changed readily by future governments. These powers are also capable of delegation under section 17. I therefore propose to the government for their consideration that the principle of best practice be built into the legislation, as it affects the issuing of licences by the CEO. In my view this could best be achieved by adding to both section 31(3) and section 32(3) the following words: `and having regard to international best practice'.I understand at the moment that the Minister for Health and Aged Care is not inclined to agree to these words being inserted into the legislation but that he would consider inserting a similar provision into the regulations which the CEO is obliged to take into account. In my view this is not good enough, as the regulations may easily be changed. The wording of the bill even contemplates that the government may in fact not prescribe any regulations in relation to sections 31 and 32. I do not propose to move these amendments today, in order to assist the expedited consideration of the bill, but when the bill is debated in the Senate it may be appropriate to do so if discussions have not proceeded to a satisfactory outcome on this point.The bill also gives the CEO very wide discretion to make decisions. It is vital that the appointment be of a person who is widely respected, as the credibility of the agency will depend on the personal authority of its head. The position should therefore be filled by a thorough process to obtain a world-class expert with the authority and judgment that the role requires, and I certainly understand that the government has that in mind.On the second issue I have raised, which is representation of the interests of the public, I want to go through the processes that the bill sets in train and then some suggested improvements. The Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council, as set out in the bill, will identify emerging issues, examine matters of public concern and advise on the recommendations from the other two committees. It also has the general power to advise the CEO on its own initiative or to look at things referred to it by the CEO.The second committee, the Radiation Health Committee, is a specialist body for radiation protection, looking at national policies, codes and standards and the promotion of these policies. It can look at things only at the request of the chief executive or the council. The third committee, the Nuclear Safety Committee, has the parallel role in relation to matters of nuclear safety and is similarly restricted in what it can look at.I note that the outline in the explanatory memorandum states that the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council will include, amongst others, consumer groups. However, this is not required in the bill. It also fails to give appropriate weight to the environmental issues, which ARPANSA will be responsible for.Instead, we see that the minister has said that he will appoint a single person who will `represent the public interest'. I would have thought that it was the purpose of the entire committee and all of its members to be committed to protecting the public interest. This language actually misses the point that the council and the two committees need to include people who represent those with different views. There is a need for debate between experts to ensure that our system for radiation protection and nuclear safety is first rate. We will not get that if the members are carefully selected to accord with the views of, say, the chief executive or of any established orthodoxy amongst the key players in the industry.We in the Labor Party believe that it is very important that the advisory council has on it, by legislation, people who represent the broadest range of opinion in the community. The minister has indicated that he intends selecting people who do not come from a narrow group. However, there is always the prospect that some will feel excluded or, more likely, that a future minister may not abide by any understanding that is not reflected in the words of the legislation. I believe that the relevant three clauses should be amended so those selected by the minister to `protect the public interest' are specifically people selected from nominations by national consumer and environmental groups. I have made these suggestions to the minister and I understand it may be possible to agree on new words that achieve this objective.I am pleased that the government has agreed to an amendment proposed by the opposition in May when the bill was previously debated. This will ensure that someone from an area affected by a controlled facility is appointed to the Nuclear Safety Committee to represent local government. I also understand that, in the first instance, this will probably be a representative of the Sutherland Shire, which is the area surrounding the Lucas Heights facility. I have received representations from the Sutherland Shire and they have been very detailed and professional. I think they have lobbied on behalf of the residents of their area very effectively and certainly merit being directly represented on the Nuclear Safety Committee. I would appreciate hearing more from the minister about how he proposes to ensure that other areas with controlled facilities are to be represented.As it happens, I represent the electorate where there is another facility—the Australian Radiation Laboratory—which has operated successfully for many years and has very good relations with its local community. It does an outstanding job in carrying out its functions. My view—and I put this to the minister—is that each facility should be proactive in engaging with its local community to ensure public confidence.All that we are talking about today is not something that should be done on the cheap. If Australia is to ensure the application of radiation and nuclear technologies that are safe, well managed and get the public's support, we must ensure that we have the best expertise, a capability to do our own research and access to the latest techniques for measuring risks and monitoring the impact of radiation.ARPANSA is intended to be self-funding and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (Licence Charges) Bill 1998 provides for charges to be levied on the holders of source licences and facility licences. The bill makes no provision about how these charges are to be set. What I would seek from the minister is an assurance that the new agency will be given a budget which is adequate for it to properly fulfil its statutory role. It is essential that ARPANSA has the resources to enable it to be well informed about the best practice around the world in the management of risks from the use of radiation and nuclear materials.I understand that the principal holders of licences will mainly be other Commonwealth agencies such as ANSTO. There is a major risk that pressure from these agencies will result in ARPANSA being given an inadequate budget and being left as a toothless tiger. There is also a risk that shortage of resources will result in lengthy delay in the development of the standards and codes that are foreshadowed. I would appreciate the minister's advice about how this is to be avoided.As I said at the start, the opposition supports the establishment of a strong and credible national regulatory framework for the control of applications of radiation and nuclear materials for medical and scientific purposes. I recognise that the bill is to be given expedited passage, and I support this to make sure that the legislation becomes effective as soon as practicable. I trust that the minister will be able to provide the information that I have sought before the bill is debated in the Senate and that he will give consideration to any minor amendments arising from my comments today.15:45:00195Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Before I begin on this important legislation, I would like to point out to the member for Jagajaga that I note she has made some criticism of the phrase `to represent the interests of the general public'. But it was actually her predecessor, the member for Dobell, who insisted on this phrase being inserted during the last parliament.Also, I noted that the member for Jagajaga raised, in her concerns about this legislation, how the local council would perhaps be represented on the committees.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I said it was a good thing.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—It was a good thing that it would be. Clause 26(d) of the legislation provides for a person to represent the local government or the local administration of an area affected by a matter relating to the safety of a controlled facility.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I am very happy about that.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—Yes. Thank you very much. It is something that I think the people of Sutherland Shire are interested in seeing put into the legislation.Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the second time this legislation has been presented in the Main Committee. As a member who has one of the `controlled facilities' in my electorate, being the nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights, I have a personal interest in ensuring the progress of this important legislation. I am grateful that our government is determined to act upon the recommendations of the research reactor review of 1993 to enact this important legislation.Also, I think I noted that the member for Jagajaga actually said that the Labor Party had been working towards this type of legislation after the recommendations of that review. I must say we never saw—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—No, we initiated the review.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—Exactly. But there was no—UNKNOWNMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Jagajaga has had her opportunity.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—That is all right. I am wanting to assist the Main Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker, just to clear it up. I do not want to verbal the member for Jagajaga.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That is not what I said.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—My understanding is that, despite the initial review being done during the Labor Party government in 1993, there did not appear to be any perception that any recommendations of that review actually had been put into force.It is with great concern that this legislation does again come before the Main Committee. I acknowledge the work of the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services, the member for Adelaide, and also acknowledge the Minister for Health and Aged Care for bringing this legislation again before the Main Committee today. I refer to my speech on 14 May this year when this matter was initially presented. I understand that perhaps I will have very little time to canvass many of the issues that I raised in that speech, Mr Deputy Speaker.It is important for my constituents because, for the first time in 40 years since the establishment of the facility at Lucas Heights, they are going to have an oversight agency which will protect the people and the environment. This is an oversight agency and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency will be responsible to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, not the minister for science. It will actually operate at arm's length from the activities of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and will reflect the world's best practice to have an independent regulatory agency that will act for the people and for the protection of the environment in our area and, indeed, Australia-wide.The government is to be commended because it is acting in that regard. It gives me some satisfaction to welcome this legislation for an independent regulatory oversight agency, together with the enabling bills to cover the licensing charges and consequential amendments.The nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights has been in my electorate of Hughes for almost 40 years. It is important that the Main Committee is aware that this is a research reactor which operates at 10 megawatts whereas a power reactor operates at 3,000 megawatts. I just stipulate that because there often is some confusion regarding nuclear reactors and there are differences.By way of history, the reactor was built in the Sutherland Shire in the mid-1950s and it was completed in 1958 when I was a child at Sylvania. The research reactor has been operating in my electorate for almost 40 years and, in that time—and most importantly in recent years—with a significant growth in world consciousness about scientific safety and environmental protection, the facility has established a sound safety record which it scrupulously maintains in accordance with community expectations. The facility employs between 800 and 900 local people, many of whom are my constituents. It has a policy of positive support for local businesses and tradespeople. It contributes almost $50 million to the economy of my electorate. So it is a very important facility for the electorate of Hughes.It also produces nuclear isotopes that are used in the delivery of diagnostic and therapeutic health services to thousands of Australians. As a matter of fact, the isotopes produced at Lucas Heights save many Australian lives and are depended upon by an increasing number of Australians as medical science expands its application of nuclear medicine.However, it has long been a concern of mine and many other residents in the Sutherland Shire that, although the facility has been operating safely now for 40 years, its regulatory regime has been significantly inadequate, given the growing world consciousness regarding health and safety issues and the heightened awareness of our responsibility to our environment, especially in the last decade. It is amazing that the previous government never had the political will to provide the proper legislative base for the appropriate regulation of nuclear installations and radiation activities in Australia.The facility was thought to operate under conditions laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but this was dismissed by the research reactor review in 1993. This review found that, up to the present, ANSTO had operated under authorisation issued by its board to its executive director. As I pointed out in my earlier speech, the Nuclear Safety Bureau had referred to this as, amongst other things, a de facto licence. Minutes from meetings of the Safety Review Committee show that, in certain areas of operation, there has been regular confusion between the Nuclear Safety Bureau and ANSTO as to who has jurisdiction in certain areas of operation. Although the International Atomic Energy Agency has set the ground rules for independent regulation of the nuclear industry, by which most countries abide, the previous government had allowed the situation to drift along. The research reactor review in 1993 concluded that this state of affairs could no longer be allowed to continue.It has been of immense personal concern to me, since my election as the member for Hughes, to ensure that appropriate regulation comes to fruition. It is with great satisfaction that I have been able to successfully lobby the government and the cabinet to take these actions necessary to put into legislation the recommendations of the research reactor review in this regard.There is wide support from the various sections of the community for this legislation. The New South Wales state Minister for the Environment, Pam Allan, has stated that the Environment Protection Authority, which administers the radiation control act in New South Wales, confirms its support for a national uniform approach to the control of radiation. The Mayor of Sutherland Shire Council, Mr Kevin Schreiber, stated:Council supports this bill and hopes that it will enjoy the confidence of the Senate and it will be passed as soon as possible.The council also supported the establishment of the oversight agency in submissions to the research reactor review in 1993 and more recently in the Senate inquiry.The prime object of these bills is to protect the health and safety of the people of Australia and to protect the unique Australian environment. These bills give effect to the cabinet decision to enact the legislation to provide this protection by the regulation of all its Commonwealth radiation and nuclear activities, and to provide the statutory base for the regulatory safety agency to be called the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency or ARPANSA. As directed by cabinet, the resources and expertise of the Australian Radiation Laboratory—the ARL—and the Nuclear Safety Bureau—the NSB—to form the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency come within the health and family services portfolios.ARPANSA will establish a regulatory scheme to oversee the operation of the Lucas Heights facility and the management of radiation sources, including ionised material and apparatus and non-ionising apparatus, where such activities are undertaken by the Commonwealth, Commonwealth entities and all those who do business with such entities. This legislation will provide a complete, independent oversight body for the better protection and assurance of all my constituents. Most importantly for my constituents, a Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council will be established under the legislation and there will be capacity within the working groups for local representation. Again, I mention the legislation for local council representation on the Nuclear Safety Committee. Clause 26(1)(d) provides for:. . . a person to represent the local government or the local administration of an area affected by a matter related to the safety of a controlled facility.It will be a direction of the CEO of this agency that matters to which he must give consideration will include consideration of world's best practice. These directions will be listed, as appropriate, in the regulations.The direction will apply to corporate bodies of the Commonwealth like ANSTO and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Commonwealth business enterprises like Australian Isotopes. It will also apply to non-Commonwealth contractors who work under contract to one of the aforementioned entities.This legislation will also impose regulatory controls on the operation and decommissioning of ANSTO's research reactor and the disposition of spent fuel. It will regulate and license each stage of the life of the replacement research reactor. ARPANSA will also regulate the establishment of a national nuclear surface radioactive waste repository. This national repository will provide for low and intermediate level waste suitable for shallow ground burial and will arrange for the safe storage of material not suitable for disposal in other ways. Mr Deputy Speaker, the waste generated from nuclear reactor operation is a real problem. The storage of waste, especially in the repository up at Lucas Heights in my electorate, has been of great concern to my constituents for many years.It is with significant interest and appreciation that we welcome this government's announcement of its selection of a designated site for this purpose in South Australia. This government is committed to the health and wellbeing of the Australian people and the Australian environment. Its actions in implementing the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Dangers of Radioactive Waste show that commitment, as does the implementation of this legislation.15:56:00198Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Aged Care10—I will just sum up, as I understand that this debate is to be adjourned, and I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution. The Labor Party raises a number of points that I am happy to take on board. The first point relates to the nature of representation on the Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council. I am happy to look at a form of words around that. I point out that what the shadow minister is seeking to amend was a Labor Party proposal in the first place. While we are happy to look at it, I point out that consumers in this area are physicians in nuclear medicine. I would prefer that organisations had the opportunity to put names forward and that I make a choice after receiving those.The opposition raises a point on international best practice: this is sensible and we are happy to take it up. The opposition raises a third point regarding the CEO. Naturally, we would follow the practices that are well established over the last 15 to 20 years of government for doing that.On the issue of a representative of local government, I am very mindful of this. The member for Hughes was a very forceful advocate for this prior to the last election and, clearly, given that ANSTO resides in her electorate, the Sutherland Shire Council will have a specific interest. I will be mindful of that when making appointments.This bill has been delayed as it was one that did not get through the Senate. Clearly, it is important that we have some nuclear regulatory framework in Australia, so I look forward to its speedy passage. Finally, in terms of the point about funding that I understand the shadow minister raised, section 55 of the bill does allow funding. In fact, the Commonwealth funding for this will continue. The issue of cost recovery is only if the organisation, ARPANSA, wishes to supplement its funding over and above the current budgetary appropriation.I thank honourable members for their contribution.Debate (on motion by Mrs Elson) adjourned.Bills199r615199Consideration resumed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills199r615199Consideration resumed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that the bill be be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills200r624200Debate resumed.16:01:00200Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I join with other honourable members in congratulating you on your re-election to that most important role within the parliament. The States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 is a non-controversial bill and as such is supported by the opposition. It provides the untied Commonwealth financial assistance to the states and territories for 1998-99. The untied assistance, of course, is that which may be spent according to the states' own priorities.The bill authorises payments for the funding agreed to at the 1998 Premiers Conference of $17.1 billion for the financial year 1998-99. In doing so, the government has continued the Labor practice of indexing the pool of funds on a real per capita basis—that is, increasing both for inflation and for the increase in population. That is a fair funding formula in the view of the opposition, as demand for state services such as health, education, infrastructure, and the like, is often driven by both inflation and by population changes.The bill also authorises the revenue from the safety net arrangements introduced to make up for the state revenue shortfall arising from last year's High Court decision in the Walter Hammond case, which invalidated state business franchise fees concerning tobacco and the like as being uncontroversial, that is, $6.5 billion for 1998-99.The Prime Minister likes to pretend that he is a successful federalist. He pretends that the Commonwealth is good at cooperative relationships with the states. However, frankly, his government's record has been somewhere approximating the worst in history. There have been three premiers conferences with Prime Minister Howard and Treasurer Costello. All of them have been disastrous, which I think is an unparalleled effort.Just prior to the 1996 meeting, Treasurer Costello announced an enormous new tax burden on the states, some $1.3 billion per annum. That ambushing poisoned the water for the conference. It was a farce. In the end the Treasurer had to back down on his tax proposal, except in respect of some cars. Instead, he cut $1.5 billion from the funds available to the states over three consecutive years, thereby cutting much needed services for Australian families. This was the meeting where the states put on the record what they really thought about the Treasurer and in the end the premiers refused to meet with the Treasurer, and the Prime Minister had to meet with them alone to finally salvage an outcome.Last year we saw a complete collapse of the COAG process, which has remained completely stalled through the whole of this wasted period of office. Finally, we had an unprecedented result where the premiers simply walked out and went home. Without question, this government has the worst record in Commonwealth-state relations of any government.We saw the proposed start of a new five-year Medicare agreement delayed due to this government's ongoing incompetence. We were unable to get, for a very long period of time, an agreement between governments of this country concerning the delivery of health care for their citizens—again, an unprecedented outcome which smacks of incompetence. So, if we look ahead at what is in store in relation to federal-state financial relations, I do not think the picture looks too rosy. I want to come to some of the thoughts that opposition leader Kim Beazley has been expressing about the future of federal-state financial relationships in the event of the GST tax package being successful.In addition to the issue of federal-state financial relations, we also need to remember that the GST will detrimentally affect the third tier of government—local government. I know that local government has been expressing great concern about the impact of the government's tax package on it, both in terms of the direct extra costs which local government will experience through its own GST liabilities, but also through the way in which the change to federal-state financial relations proposed by this government through the GST will impact on direct local government financial relationships and diminish its position. I think that is a bad thing. Local government plays a most important role in the life of Australians, and to see its financial position disadvantaged in the way that the federal government proposes is not a good thing.This debate, which looks at the Commonwealth-state implications of the government's tax package, amongst other things, needs to look at what implications the tax package has for other policy areas, the social policy areas. Indeed, I think what we have to do is to look at the social implications of changes to Commonwealth-state financial relations which the coalition proposes. One of the things that will increasingly be understood about the tax debate is that it did not end on 3 October; in many important respects it is only now beginning, as people come to understand and want to debate what its implications will be in a whole variety of areas which were not covered by the taxpayer funded $15 million or so in advertising supporting the government's changes.We need to have a much closer examination of the GST package's implications for Commonwealth-state financial relations. As opposition leader Kim Beazley has observed, what this government is proposing with its GST is the most radical change in Commonwealth-state financial relations since the Commonwealth's acquisition of uniform taxation powers during the Second World War. That much has certainly been recognised in the debate, but only ever suggested as a good rather than for its potential dangers.What the supporters of the change fail to recognise in particular is the very clear intention of this government in proposing the structure it does for Commonwealth-state financial relations. What we have not recognised sufficiently so far is that this issue goes to the very heart of government service delivery. It goes to the heart of an agenda of some 30 years standing in which, through special purpose payments, the Commonwealth government has jointly with the states laid the fundamentals for equity and social justice in the Australian community. That is an agenda which certainly developed in the postwar climate where we had a greater sense of understanding of Australia as a nation and the need for the Commonwealth to be involved in service delivery; and it certainly came very much as a result of the work of the Whitlam government, during the mid-1970s, drawing attention to the need by Australians for better services as our community matured and developed.The theory on which this government operates is that it is now time to sweep that aside, that premiers conferences should come to an end. The basis of the Commonwealth's tax package is that it will vacate about $30 billion of direct and indirect taxes and the system of financial assistance grants. The states, in return, will vacate a series of indirect taxes and will gain GST revenue worth about $30 billion. That, it is said, will give the states financial independence. And the public awareness of this shift is largely focused on the government's promise that the GST will not rise without a unanimous state vote.We note that no less—or more incessant—a critic of the ALP than Alan Wood has written of John Howard's tax plan, that it:`. . . leaves the Commonwealth largely dependent on the income tax base for its revenue, a situation it will not long accept. There are several ways it can get around this, such as pushing spending programmes onto the States, cutting back Special Purpose Payments to the States . . . or simply legislating to reduce State access to GST revenue.We can see from this that the Commonwealth has a number of options if it finds the package unsatisfactory in future.Kim Beazley has pointed out that this is likely to be highly detrimental to long-term equity in the tax system, that it is confusing in a range of public policy areas critical to both fairness and productivity in Australian society, and that these dynamics will produce constant challenges to the political process when confronting the adequacy of public provision in areas like health, education, community services, transport and the like. So the situation we will have is the Commonwealth's passing more and more responsibility onto the states and the states operating with a veto over changes to the GST. However, increasingly they will be forced to respond at the level of the lowest common denominator, that is to say, the cheapest possible service.It ought to be noted while we are on this theme that there is nothing preventing the states from reinstating the taxes which they are required to abandon as part of the GST plan. They are required to abandon them now but there is no constitutional or other limitation on the states simply reintroducing those taxes or user charges in response to cuts in Commonwealth special purpose payments. So for this reason I think it is necessary that the Prime Minister guarantee that, as part and parcel of the taxation arrangements, there will not be cuts in Commonwealth specific purpose funding for the states, so that we will not come to a situation where we are faced with a terrible choice between fewer services, higher GST, or a myriad of increased state taxes and user charges. I think we would all understand that both of those revenue raising options there would be highly regressive.We are concerned that the Commonwealth is prepared in the first instance to cut special purpose payments and require the states to pick up the slack. That view was something the Prime Minister was expressing during the election debate. When the issue of dental care arose, the Prime Minister said, `That is a state responsibility.' He has that same position whether the issue be education, aged care, transport, or other community services—eventually, I guess, everything bar defence and pensions. Currently, the Commonwealth provides in the order of $16 billion a year in special purpose payments. Within that sort of funding, we get all the equity programs in education and the Commonwealth contribution to aged care funding via HACC, just to point out a couple. These are important areas where continued, ongoing Commonwealth support will be necessary and where we cannot afford to have the Commonwealth retreating from the field.If we look at the area of public hospitals, the states have referred to an annual shortfall of $1 billion. The Commonwealth's initial response in the area of the Medicare agreement was $180 million. The states may have been submitting an ambit claim, but certainly the Commonwealth's offer was inadequate; it was simply not going to meet the ongoing health needs of this country. So Labor responded to that with an election policy for an extra $500 million per annum over and above the coalition's $180 million. We considered that sort of additional support to be essential.At the same time as the Commonwealth is inviting the states to fill holes in the area of services, it is also going to need the states to help it fill a hole in the business tax agenda. We saw during the election campaign quite a few business organisations going quiet in the hope of post-election concessions, the foremost of which, no doubt, was the abolition of payroll taxes. This is now in the gift of the states, but it was the Commonwealth that started off debate in that area. The not so subtle invitation to the states now will be to raise the GST by the required three to four per cent, in order that the payroll tax can go.DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—No.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Well, the minister says no, but the government knows that initially modest GSTs in Europe have risen up to 25 per cent under various pressures, entirely similar to the ones that we are talking about now—the same sorts of pressures with the same sort of outcome: up goes the GST. And there is plenty of room to move.Dr Southcott interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The member for Wills has the call. I will call the member for Boothby in a moment.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—As the Premiers Conference disappears, perhaps, and as the formula of state financial independence is reinforced, the cooperative model of the past 30 years of critical service delivery will give way to the opportunity for that electorally timed federal income tax cut. There is no doubt in my mind that this process is going to institutionalise—indeed, exacerbate—inequity in the Australian taxation system. It will reduce the progressivity of the Australian taxation system.For those people who support a GST as a supposed growth tax which will be a way in which services might be protected, they are wrong. There is no protection or guarantee of service protection inherent in a GST. The prospect of the federal income tax cut will be to put more service responsibilities back onto the states, looking to them to boost the GST and to reintroduce some of those user charges that people are so distressed about; we will still see all of that. What we will have is the balance of regressive taxes in the Australian taxation system increasing as the balance of progressive ones decreases.Public expectation of the Commonwealth is high in educational and social services and in public infrastructure. Regrettably, the government has been able to get away with things like cuts to dental services; but, if they are able to get away with the GST package, we will see them increasingly endeavouring to get out of the area of service provision, and passing those responsibilities on to the states.Before I conclude, the other thing I ought to say about federal-state relations is that it is regrettable that we find a race to the bottom, or a dutch auction, going on in terms of state fees and charges. One of my colleagues in the Victorian parliament put a question on the notice paper to the Victorian Treasurer about the cost of the decision in 1995 by the Queensland government to cut stamp duty on share transactions, and the Treasurer's answer came back that, of course, in the light of the Queensland government's decision, Victoria had halved its rate of stamp duty on share transfers and that the cost of that tax change was estimated at an average of approximately $125 million per annum over the four years of 1995-96 to 1998-99. Clearly, that is a very substantial loss in income; and it was a theme which was picked up as recently as this morning by the Courier-Mail in its discussion of the states' arguments about—Honourable members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not wish to interrupt the member for Wills, but I am finding it very difficult to hear you, and I am sure that Hansard is, as well. I would like some courtesy from the people sitting at the front table. Thank you, Minister Hockey; thank you, the member for Boothby. The member for Wills has the call.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Queensland Courier-Mail has been commenting this morning on what it describes as the `outbreak of war' among the states as they prepare to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the impact of the GST on their finances. We have had some debate between Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria about the way in which the GST package will impact on them—indeed, should it impact on them. It is regrettable when we get to a situation where states decide to reduce their own taxes and in turn cause other states to do likewise. As a result, the services which are needed in the community diminish.It is certainly my belief that where Commonwealth-state financial relations are concerned there is an obligation on the states to do what they can to raise revenue in a progressive way. Where their taxation is regressive there is clearly a case for Commonwealth support but, where the taxation arrangements that they have in place are progressive taxes, I think it would be desirable that the states continue to maintain that taxation effort.As I said at the outset, this is not a controversial bill and therefore the opposition will be supporting it.16:21:00204Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—As the previous speaker said, the States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Bill 1998 is not a controversial bill. It is a bill we debate every year which gives the states untied money in order to operate. I thought I might just take this opportunity to reflect on the differing responsibilities that the Commonwealth and state governments have, and also the proposals that the government has to improve them.Recently there was a study done by Professor Francis Castles of the ANU and Kerry Barwise of Treasury which concluded that, when it comes to taxing revenues, Australia is one of the most centralised raisers of revenue in the world. In fact, we ranked third out of all OECD countries. If you look at other federations, in the United States, Washington raises something like 50 per cent of the total revenue raised. In Germany, Berlin raises about 30 per cent of total revenue raised. In Australia, Canberra raises about 80 per cent of total national revenue. I might point out that that study was done before the August 1997 High Court case which said that the states did not have the power to raise excise on tobacco, alcohol and petrol.Not only is Australia more centralised than any other federation in the world; it is also more centralised than some centralised states, such as France. In fact, as I said, it was third out of all OECD countries, beating several countries which do not even have states.While the Commonwealth is centralised on the revenue side, it is highly decentralised on the outlay side. They found that to be significant because decentralised systems actually end up spending less because the levels of bureaucracy actually provide a constraint to the money being spent.Generally, in terms of vertical fiscal imbalance and the whole shape of the federal system, we are in poor shape in that the states only raise about 55 per cent of the revenue that they spend and Canberra supplies the rest. At the annual Premiers Conference you see fights always breaking out about the amount that Canberra will give them. It means that the states generally do not have responsibility for raising the money that they subsequently spend.It is not a new problem. The states have been reliant, to some extent, on the Commonwealth since Federation, and especially since 1942 when they gave up their income tax power. Malcolm Fraser, in the 1970s, attempted to reform the system by giving the states some powers, some responsibilities, and also the power to raise income tax. None of the states took up his offer.Bob Hawke, in 1990, in reflecting the spirit of 100 years earlier, decided it was time to rejig the Federation. He went through a series of consultations with the states to introduce his new federalism. As most people will remember, new federalism was one of the first things that was poleaxed by Paul Keating prior to his final assault on Hawke. The High Court's decision last year now indicates that the states are more dependent on Canberra than ever.In terms of how that is going to change, one of the positive things, I think, about the government's tax package is the way that the revenue from the GST is going to be given to the states. The states will be given something like $20 billion in revenue. This could be one of the last bills we actually debate in which we are going to be giving all the revenue in this sort of way. Instead, we are going to have a specific amount of GST revenue which will go direct to the states.One of the problems is that the states have only very limited areas that they can actually tax. That is probably one of the reasons we have seen an explosion of gambling around Australia. In fact, the Economist a year or two ago described the explosion of gambling and casinos in Australia as like the rabbit plagues of the 1950s. They tend to be a little bit out of date with their images of Australia.The taxes that the states rely on are inefficient. They rely on taxing bank transactions—things like FID and BAD. These involve significant compliance costs for people who are operating in different states because they differ depending on the jurisdiction. They also do impact a lot harder on people who have low incomes.Also, stamp duties, again, are different between different jurisdictions. The stamp duties on shares are levied by each of the states, but are an important obstacle to Australia becoming an important financial centre in the Asia-Pacific. There are vast differences between the state tax bases and rates.The way it is going to work is that during the transition period the states will not be worse off. It is estimated that by 2003-2004 the states will be something like $370 million better off. That is, as the economy grows, the amount of goods and services transacted will grow and the states will have more for services such as schools, hospitals and so on. Having said that, just briefly, I think that is a positive move. It does not actually address vertical fiscal imbalance because we will still be raising the money for them, but it does at least give the states some responsibility for that money. I will support the bill.16:27:00205Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPFinancial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Wills and the member for Boothby for their contribution to this debate. Despite the fact that this is essentially an uncontroversial bill, I join with the member for Boothby in welcoming the fact that hopefully this will be one of the very last times that this parliament should have to debate a bill proposing general purpose grants to the states. That is because, as both speakers pointed out, under the coalition's tax reform package, the states will, for the first time, have access to a new national, aggressive growth tax.The growth tax comes from not its level of application, or the issues to which it applies, but from the simple fact that there is always going to be an ever increasing—or we would expect ever increasing—amount of consumption by the Australian people. Therefore, the net revenue collected from the tax will obviously continue to grow. That is one of the most significant gripes that the states have: the fact that they have a deteriorating taxation base; that the stamp duties that they collect are under very serious challenge from various aspects of globalisation; and that FID and BAD taxes are exactly that, bad taxes, because they are in fact handcuffs on the flow of money within the economy. When you have other transaction based taxes such as stamp duties on marketable securities, particularly stamp duty on the transfer of shares, then what you have in place are serious disincentives to international investment in our financial markets.One of the most significant benefits of the government's tax reform package is the fact that we are removing the shackles from the movement of money in the Australian economy and therefore making it a more attractive place. In fact, we are reinforcing the idea that we are a haven for the flow of international money.Most speakers referred to the fact that we continue to endure the unfortunate aspects of vertical fiscal imbalance—that is, that the Commonwealth collects significantly more revenue than it spends in terms of direct services to the community. That situation will change. Technocrats can argue forever and a day whether the clear definition of vertical fiscal imbalance will change, given that the Commonwealth will collect a GST, but the revenue will go to the states. I am sure the debate on the theoretical aspects of that will continue for years to come.However, the fact is that the states will determine the rate of the GST, in consultation with the Commonwealth and both houses of parliament, and they will receive the full benefit of the GST collected. In that sense, it is clearly arguable that the vertical fiscal imbalance problem is addressed. Of course, it will never resolve, and we will never resolve, the horizontal fiscal equalisation problems that occur. That is the imbalance in the amount of revenue paid by the people in New South Wales and Victoria to the states but primarily to the Commonwealth, and the fact that through the Grants Commission process the money is reallocated to the benefit of some of the other states. I think there is a stranger in the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—No, I am sure there is not, Minister.QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—You're the strangest one here.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the floor.DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—Thank you for reassuring me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following on from some of the comments from the member for Wills, I do want to point out to him that the most significant threat to services provided by the states—and I want to emphasise this—is not the amount of revenue that they receive but, at the moment, the quality of the revenue that they receive and the fact that the taxes that the states rely on, such as stamp duty on the transfer of shares, get caught up in the bargaining process between, say, Queensland and New South Wales—and we saw the Queensland Premier threaten to abolish the last tranche of stamp duty on the transfer of shares only recently—and also the fact that other taxes such as FID and debits are under threat because of the significant transformations in banking and financial services.Therefore, the Commonwealth is throwing to the states a lifeline in the form of the GST. It is throwing them a lifeline so that they can continue to deliver the same services and improved services compared to what they are currently providing. We have not heard the states. I do not think that even Bob Carr, the Labor Premier in New South Wales, has said that he did not want the revenue from a GST. He has not said that and, surprise, why not? Because he is a significant beneficiary of the new taxation system that we are proposing. If any issue is self-evident for the Senate, it is this: the Senate is a states house. It was set down by the founding fathers to be a house to represent the interests of the states. The new taxation system is the most significant saviour for the states and their ability to provide essential services to the people of Australia that have been provided in the last 50 years. If the Senate truly is a states house, it will truly support the taxation initiatives that we have put in place. This bill is an essential bill. It is a very important bill. It is the blood flow to the states so that they can continue to provide the essential services in health, education, law and order, and so on.I do thank the honourable members for Wills and Boothby for their significant contributions to this debate and, accordingly, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills207r631207Debate resumed.16:34:00207Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Some of the important amendments the government seeks to introduce through the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 were due to commence on 1 July 1998. This bill was first introduced into the parliament on 12 March and has been on the books since then. Its passage through the Senate was interrupted by the government's decision to call an early election. This is yet another example of how this government puts its political agenda ahead of the needs of families. The government had 2½ years to fix some of the problems with the child support scheme, yet this bill, like so much of this government's agenda, was subsumed by its political agenda. The government's delay in dealing with this bill is a sad reflection on the level of its commitment to bringing about important reform in this area.Like many members of parliament my office has been inundated by calls from both custodial and non-custodial parents, raising issues as emotive as they are difficult. Labor understands that there are no easy fixes, but a responsible government must tackle these issues. After talking to many individuals affected by these problems, I will always consider well thought out and fair proposed changes in this area. The delays in dealing with this bill have perpetuated the problems for many people.The correct balance between the needs of custodial and non-custodial parents is very difficult to achieve. This bill represents the government's substantive response to the recommendations of the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues into the child support scheme, and goes part of the way toward achieving such a balance, but the Labor Party believes that more needs to be done.The opposition will be moving the same amendments that we moved last May, with the exception of our amendment dealing with non-agency payments, the substance of which has now been incorporated. However, as someone who has spent the last 2½ years having a spell in the paddock, and doing a lot of listening, I have an open mind on what further improvements could be made in this area in the years ahead.This bill proposes a number of changes. Firstly, the bill introduces a minimum child support liability for all payer parents of $260 per annum, and, secondly, includes net rental property losses—that is, negative gearing types of losses and exempt foreign income—in the taxable income for child support purposes. The bill proposes to introduce case management to assist parents at risk of family violence, to end the collection of child support or, indeed, to recommence the collection of child support as appropriate.However, I offer a note of caution, which I hope the Minister for Family and Community Services, and her representative in this place, will heed. As Centrelink is now the first point of contact for clients of the child support system, it will be the staff of Centrelink who will be placed in the unenviable position of explaining the changes which the government is proposing. These are the same staff who have been told they must endure savage cuts of 5,000 jobs over the years ahead. At the same time, they have been asked to deal with new and complex policy issues.While the government may choose to ignore the crisis in Centrelink, the Australian people know the truth about the constant engaged signals, overworked and despondent staff, and a worrying number of mistakes and delays in payments. Centrelink staff are now being asked to somehow find the time to help people sort out what the government changes will mean for them. I suspect very few child support clients will be satisfied discussing their personal affairs with a kiosk in a shopping centre.Of course, those clients who would be prepared to interact with a machine, rather than with a trained staff member, will have to hang around for five years waiting for the government to install the technology. The simple fact is that the current services are in crisis. There are more job cuts on the way and the new technology is years away from being ready. Child support system clients have every right to be suspicious of this government's commitment to assist them or to help them resolve difficult problems which they face.If this government fails to provide Centrelink with the resources it needs to assist clients of the child support system, it will be held accountable by the Australian people. Be assured: the Labor Party will not allow this government to shirk its responsibilities or to pretend that this problem does not exist.The government also proposes increasing the exempt income of the child support payers by 10 per cent. For 1997-98, the exempt amount would be $9,907 for single taxpayers and $16,525, plus additional amounts for each child, for payers with natural or adopted children in their care. It also proposes to lower what is referred to as the `payee's disregarded income' from $37,424 to $29,598 by using a figure known as the `all employees average total weekly earnings', rather than full-time adult weekly earnings.It needs to be pointed out that this reduction will be offset, at least in part, by the halving of the rate at which child support is reduced from the present dollar for dollar reduction in child support once you are over that income limit to 50c in the dollar. Payees may seek reassessment if they incur high child-care costs exceeding five per cent of their income.The bill also seeks to revise the child support scheme objectives to recognise that both parents are responsible for the support of their children. It seeks to allow parents, by agreement, to undertake private collection of child support at any time, and it talks about using the most current taxable income information available in the child support assessment. However, I would want to suggest that simply using the previous tax year, rather than the one before, does not really resolve the problems faced by many clients of the child support system. People are required to make estimates of their income or face being subjected to the indexation factors. If they do estimate their income, and if it turns out that their income is less than they have estimated, but the difference is less than 15 per cent, they cannot recover the amounts they pay in child support. This problem is a source of great frustration to many people. In talking to clients of the child support system, I have heard, time and time again, heartbreaking stories about the effect of this rule. Labor will be considering how this and other problems, not addressed by the government's amendments, can be addressed in the future.The government's bill also seeks to allow the non-custodial parent to pay up to 25 per cent of their child support liability in kind without the consent of the custodial parent, subject to discretion on the part of the registrar. It also seeks to introduce an internal review mechanism for objection to decisions made by the Child Support Agency. It proposes to deem a stepchild to be a dependent child where the court has made a relevant order under the Family Law Act. It also proposes to continue child support liability until the end of the school year where the child is undergoing full-time secondary education and turns 18 during that school year.It has to be said that the child support legislation has been controversial and was the subject of an extensive inquiry by a committee of the parliament, the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues. That committee received 6,197 submissions which, I understand, is the largest number ever received by any parliamentary committee. So there is a very substantial degree of community interest and community concern in relation to this issue. This is borne out by the fact that the 1997-98 Commonwealth Ombudsman's report notes that the Child Support Agency accounted for some 12 per cent of all complaints to the Ombudsman's office.I understand that the Child Support Agency receives in excess of 4,000 letters a day and that, from 1 July 1997 to 30 November 1997, it received 17,516 applications for departure from the standard formula. So there is no doubt that the Child Support Agency has generated a lot of community comment and, indeed, community concern. When the child support review was conducted by the joint select committee, it concluded that the development of the child support scheme was a qualified success. It pointed out that it had been successful in sheeting home to parents responsibility for looking after their children, and making it clear that it was not acceptable to have children and then to walk away from that responsibility of looking after them until they attain the age of majority.It ought to be said that there are many people who have been highly critical of the child support scheme. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that it is used in some places as a campaigning weapon against the Labor Party. But, if we look at the legislation before us, the government has essentially acknowledged the strengths of the child support scheme by making no essential changes to the basic model. We now have a situation where the government appears to support the scheme, leaving those in its own ranks who have been critical of it in an interesting position. I would be interested to hear what other participants in this debate from the government side have to say about this bill.When this bill was first debated in the House in May, the government used its numbers to gag debate on opposition amendments. That was a clumsy and outrageous decision, and smacks of genuine contempt not only of the parliamentary process but also of the interests of the thousands of parents who are interested in the debate on the child support scheme. It was cut off thanks to what was essentially a mean-spirited act by the government. One has to ask: why did this happen; why was it gagged? It seems clear that the government was deeply concerned that some within its own ranks were seriously considering supporting some of Labor's amendments.For example, we had the unprecedented event of the former member for Dickson, Tony Smith, moving amendments to the government's bill. Let me repeat: a government backbencher at that time moved amendments to a government bill. And it is important to remember that at that time he was still a fully paid-up member of the Liberal Party and the coalition. Of course, he cited the government's failure to reform the Child Support Agency as a major reason for his resignation from the government.For our part, good policy is always an unfinished business. Just because the child support scheme has noble objectives does not mean that it is by any means perfect and it does not mean that it will not require adjustment into the future. On the contrary, it is all the more probable that important and complex legislation which affects the lives of countless families will always require adjustment into the future. The simple fact is that an astounding number of ordinary Australians, from both sides of the debate, felt strongly enough about this issue to make submissions to the joint select committee inquiry. Labor understands the depth of that feeling and the frustration among ordinary Australians, and so we will be monitoring the effect of the government's amendments.The opposition has put forward a number of amendments which we believe pick up issues arising out of the report of the joint select committee. We will be doing that at the end of this debate. A particularly important amendment we are looking at is to try and ensure that changes in income are properly reflected in child support liabilities. At present, the payers who suffer a reduction in their income cannot recover any payments that they make unless that reduction exceeds 15 per cent. Recommendations 125 to 127 of the joint select committee's report provide for a much more up-to-date assessment of income and thereby largely address this problem. The government has made some changes, both in this legislation and previously, which are intended to help address this problem, but as far as we can tell it still remains a serious issue for people making estimates of their income.Let us say that a person is employed as a part-time cleaner, that they have a part-time cleaning contract. If that contract comes up for renewal and they miss out on the contract, their income is therefore reduced but their child support is paid on that earlier basis and they are not entitled to recover the overpayments. This strikes us as a problem that could be better addressed. Therefore, we are proposing that recommendations 125 to 127 of the joint select committee report be put forward to address this.We think there ought to be a financial penalty on anyone who deliberately or recklessly provides false or misleading information. We do not want to encourage dishonesty in this area. This is something that the joint select committee also recommended in recommendations 128 and 129. The opposition's amendment has also been designed to work in reverse—that is, if a payee's income rises unexpectedly, then they will be required to declare that increase and meet any increased child support liability.We propose to put forward some amendments which will attack child support avoidance, which continues to be a problem. The joint select committee recommendation 142 is designed to help repair the child support income base by identifying parents who receive business or investment income and the extent to which those parents minimise their child support liabilities in that way. The joint select committee recommendations 143 and 144 propose that fringe benefits should be added to the existing child support income base for both parents and that we should require both parents to provide full details of all fringe benefits received from an employer.Our amendments also provide for the establishment of an inquiry into certain aspects of the modelling of the scheme, including the impact on the relative disposable income of payee and payer parents of the value of fringe benefits provided by all levels of government to parents who are social security recipients. This is in accordance with the joint select committee recommendation 162. We also propose that that assessment be conducted by a body independent of the Department of Family and Community Services.We will be putting forward an amendment concerning the issue of subsequent family repartnering following the joint select committee proposal 139 that a payer parent's subsequent family formula self-support component be increased so that the relativity between the single and married rate of pension is reflected in the basic and subsequent self-support component. I believe that this amendment would go some way towards addressing what is an increasing concern—that the children of subsequent relationships are being treated as less valuable than the children of the first relationship.The amendments we propose to move cover matters that need obvious attention. There are some matters that may need further consideration, and it is possible we will be moving amendments in the Senate in respect of those matters. In particular, I am concerned that some custodial parents at the lower end of the income scale might receive less child support as a result of the bill and that this loss will be only partially picked up by an increase in their family allowance entitlement. We will therefore be moving amendments in the Senate to address this problem through the social security system.What the government has failed to acknowledge is the effect of some of these changes upon the poorest sole parent families as well as upon the poorest non-custodial families. Labor will be moving to remedy this problem by moving further amendments in the Senate.Child support, as we in the parliament all know, does arouse very strong passions, and it is seen as evidence that there is some sort of gender war taking place in our society. Members who spoke on this issue in a previous debate in this place were absolutely right when they indicated we should stop looking at this issue just through the prism of gender. Most importantly, I think we have to continue to look at it through the prism of need.In over 90 per cent of cases of separation or divorce it is the woman who ends up with the children and becomes the payee parent, and therefore in over 90 per cent of cases it is the man who is the payer parent and liable to pay child support.The joint select committee process confirms what many of us have known for some time: that the levels of disquiet, frustration and dismay on both sides are staggering. I might take this moment to quote a section from the committee's report:The Joint Committee considered the wider social impact of the interaction of social security, child support, family law and taxation legislation on the behaviour of custodial and non custodial parents both within and outside the Scheme. In particular, the Joint Committee is concerned that the interaction of this broad range of legislation may be creating serious work disincentives for both custodial and non custodial parents, putting intolerable pressure on existing relationships and discouraging the formation of new relationships generally.These are complex and emotive issues which must be tackled with the interests of both the custodial and non-custodial parents in mind but with the absolutely paramount imperative of ensuring that the children are adequately provided for. The government has yet to demonstrate its commitment to this goal. The Labor Party understands there is a way to go before the child support system will be widely accepted as delivering the best outcome for our nation's children while being at the same time as fair as possible to both parties.I hope that in the future we are able to move forward to a situation where there is less hardship and misery all around. There is no question in my mind that the breakdown of a marriage, or of any relationship involving children, is a terrible thing: it leaves emotional scars on parents and on children. We try, as a parliament, to do justice to each and every one of these situations, but from my own experience as a member of parliament that sometimes that does not occur—and perhaps all too frequently that does not occur. But whether, as legislators, we can find an adequate remedy for each and every one of those cases I am not sure.I hope that the government's bill represents a further step in the development of a fair and just social policy. As I indicated at the outset, we support it but we will move amendments both here and in the Senate which we hope will improve it further, and may move additional amendments to that end in the Senate particularly.16:53:00212Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am pleased to speak in support of the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , a very important bill. It was introduced into the House of Representatives in the previous parliament, and I spoke on it in this second chamber. It was passed, with government amendments, in May 1998. The bill has been reintroduced to the parliament because it had lapsed due to the prorogation of the parliament in September.As I said at the time when I spoke on the bill in this chamber, I am a bit of a radical on child support. I do not say this with any criticism of the current government, nor of the previous government. I think that the Child Support Agency and its mechanisms have not fully encompassed the gravity or the size of the task we have before us, and I stand committed to that view.Statistics tell us that as many as one marriage in three ends in divorce. When reflecting on this startling figure, we are confronted by the conclusion that whatever we put in place has to be streamlined, fair, accessible and, above all, affordable. There are some very sensible measures in the bill which address most of the concerns of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues, which the member for Lilley just referred to. It underscores the fundamental principles that parents are primarily responsible for the financial support of their children. I think the marginal increase from $9,000 to $9,900 in the exempt income for payers of child support could have gone further, but I appreciate there are limitations on what the government can do in any given year. I personally would like to have seen it increased by 20 per cent rather than by 10 per cent.The amount of the carers income to be disregarded has come down from $37,000 to $29,000, in round figures. That, too, is a fair assessment because, instead of being based on the average weekly earnings of someone in full-time employment, it is based on average weekly earnings of all employees, and I think that is a far better benchmark to work on.I think the introduction of the minimum payment of $260 per annum in calculating the amount of child support payable is a good rule. I have had people come to me and say, `I'm going on the dole; I'm going to go on the pension; I'm not going to support my kids any more; I've had enough of this,' because of some emotional frustration with the previous partner. I do not think that is good enough, and I think the fact that people have to pay $5 a week is an indication that everyone has a responsibility, even those on the lowest of incomes.I am not saying that at times people's circumstances do not call for reassessment. But I think the attitude that you can just throw yourself on the care of the state and expect to be exempt from all other responsibilities for your children is stretching the issue too far. The amendments will allow a token payment of $5 per week from social security pensioners and beneficiaries. It is an acknowledgment that there is a financial responsibility in bringing children into the world no matter what your circumstances are. Allowing payers and payees greater flexibility in reaching arrangements relating to child care is a very sensible measure too, as is addressing the situation where child-care arrangements have changed from those specified in various orders.Allowing child support to continue to the end of the school year in which a child turns 18 is completely reasonable. Where a child turns 18 in July of their final school year, no-one would expect the custodial parent putting that child through grade 12 to have to support that child without any assistance for the second half of the year.There are also such things as the introduction of review mechanisms enabling the registrar to initiate a departure from the administrative assessment of child support where the registrar has information pointing to a review process, rather than just the word of one parent. I think that also has been long awaited.There is inclusion of exempt foreign income and rental property losses in calculating income. I think we have all seen potential payers become very adept at using rental properties to avoid paying their just entitlements. I would personally like to see that part of the bill strengthened even further. I have a number of outrageous cases amongst my constituents where income is hidden in all sorts of family companies and discretionary trusts. I know of one instance of a gentleman who drives around in a BMW and who spends $300 a week in restaurants, $150 a week on liquor, takes frequent trips overseas and then pays his wife a pittance, because the family has been very adept at concealing income. I think the registrar and the ATO should have some mechanism of probing those sorts of things more fully.Also in the bill is a provision allowing determinations to be based on more recent income, instead of on income from the previous two years. Basically, assessment will be on income from the last full year. It also means that payments can be altered automatically and in a more meaningful fashion.The one that I particularly like amongst these is allowing 50 per cent of child care expenditure to be excluded from a person's income for purposes of family allowance. This has been long awaited, and it allows the non-custodial parent, in the case where that non-custodial parent has taken on a new family, to receive a fuller and more reasonable assessment.By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not see the government's amendments as being the end of the process. I would like to see this put in the hands of an ongoing committee. Whatever form that takes, whether a parliamentary committee, a select committee, a joint committee, or a prime ministerial task force, I think that this thing is so fraught with emotion and with financial abuse that there needs to be some monitoring body that ensures that fairness prevails.I have in my own electorate groups of the men's support service, a group in Bundaberg and another in Gladstone. Recently I attended the Bundaberg men's support service. I do not say that with any sort of gender bias; they just happen to be the ones who have most of the non-custodial parents as members. They have some horrific instances that relate partly to the Child Support Agency and partly to the Family Court, and I would like to touch on something in the context of this today.I am not one of those who believe that you can separate access to children from Child Support Agency matters. I know the theorists tell us it should be that if you bring children into the world that is one responsibility, and to have access is another one. We have manipulative parents, as you all know, who do not send their kids for access. Suddenly the kids get the flu on the morning that they are due, or the kids are going to a cold climate and the parent says, `Yes, you can have the children but you will have to buy them warm clothes,' or, `Yes, they can go, but I cannot pay half the plane fares this time.' All those sorts of things go to frustrate the non-custodial parent having reasonable access.I have had some outrageous cases of custodial parents who have been defying the courts for nearly three years. When once or twice the non-custodial parent—because the child has been sick or there has been a suggestion of some form of abuse—has held the children for two or three days, the custodial parent never seems to have any trouble getting legal aid to have the children returned. Yet, when the boot is on the other foot and the custodial parent is defying the court on an ongoing basis, sometimes for two and three years at a time, nothing ever happens.For that reason, I would like to touch briefly, in the few minutes remaining to me, on the proposal put up by the Attorney-General for the establishment of a federal magistracy. I am a great supporter of this, and we actually debated this in the context of a similar debate in this very chamber in the dying stages of the last parliament. The former member for Dickson, himself a barrister, made some very good suggestions about this. If we had federal magistrates, some of those orders that are being abused could be rectified very quickly. Solicitors' expenses would be reduced; barristers would be less likely to be needed to be briefed; waiting times would be lessened; legal costs and costs incurred through litigation would be kept to a minimum; access to magistrates in regional areas would save litigants having to travel. I hope that when the Attorney-General brings in his legislation we get a degree of bipartisanship about this because I think it is urgently needed. If we could get very clear-cut rules that both sides have to abide by, we would get a much better result in this matter.I have exhausted my 10 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that the minister wants to wind up this debate, so I will conclude on that and commend the bill to the House.17:05:00214Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I begin by thanking the honourable member for Lilley and the honourable member for Hinkler for their contributions to the debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . I know that this is an issue of great interest to many members on both sides, and there has obviously been an extensive debate on this legislation in the previous parliament. I am grateful to the opposition for granting the rapid passage of this legislation so that it can get to the other house and be taken up where it was left off at the time that the parliament concluded.This is, as the honourable member for Lilley rightly commented, a difficult area. This legislation is an acknowledgment that not all is right with the Child Support Agency arrangements. However, he says, and I readily agree, that no matter how perfect we may get the formula and the arrangements—and we should strive to have them as perfect as is possible to be—there will still be many difficulties in this area. We are dealing with breakdowns in relationships where often there is an absence of goodwill, or where there is sadly a degree of attempting to get square and to use the formula or whatever administrative arrangements might be in place to endeavour to even up the balance sheet for things that had gone wrong in a past relationship. That certainly means that this legislation and, indeed, all endeavours in this area are often cast in the most difficult environments possible.In the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues there was a very comprehensive inquiry into these sorts of matters. There was tremendous public interest in that inquiry, and the report came down with 163 recommendations. That came down in 1994; and I noted the criticism by the member for Lilley of the actions of the current government in addressing those recommendations. Perhaps it is worth it to point out that, whilst he referred to his absence from this chamber for a while, he was a part of the Keating government that actually received this report and did precious little. Very few of the recommendations were dealt with by the Keating government, even though they had a year and a half or more to address them—and those that they dealt with were basically the pretty easy ones.The coalition government was left with the report and has, through this legislation and other actions, addressed the vast majority of the recommendations of that committee. We acknowledge the bipartisan effort that was put into that committee to endeavour to address the very difficult issues involved. We have now very substantially, with this legislation, worked through the recommendations of that report.The government has acknowledged that it does not see this legislation as the end of the issue. This is stage 2. We are already working to address others of the remaining recommendations of that report and, indeed, other issues that have come up since. The commitment was made, in the summing up of the legislation in the House of Representatives, that this was not seen by the government as the end of the matter and that further legislation could be expected in the life of this parliament.The opposition proposes to move some amendments, and I will comment on those when we get to that stage of the debate. I thank the member for Hinkler, who outlined many of the features of the legislation and many of the changes that are proposed. They are quite comprehensive and cover a very large range of matters of concern. We know that, as the honourable member for Hinkler has rightly said, there is still more to be done, but we believe that this legislation should be supported because it does make substantial advances. I have to say that even in my own electorate I had people coming to me during the election campaign, critical of the fact that this legislation had not passed. So I hope that the Senate will deal promptly with it and that the opposition will give it smooth passage—bearing in mind that the Senate did have some opportunity to deal with it and did not take up that opportunity. I hope that they will give it much more priority when it comes to the Senate following its passage through the House on this occasion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.215Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:11:00215Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 15, page 88 (after line 23), item 2, after paragraph (b), insert:(c) the value of any fringe benefits, as defined in the Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986 , received by the liable parent during the liable parent's last relevant year of income in relation to the child support year. (2) Schedule 15, page 89 (after line 26), item 3, after paragraph (b) insert:(c) the value of any fringe benefits, as defined in the Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986 received by the entitled carer during the last relevant year of income in relation to the child support year.(3) Page 147, (after line 31) after Schedule 20, insert:Schedule 20A—Further amendments Child Support (Assessment) Act 19891 After section 55Insert:55A Registrar to be notified of value of fringe benefits received (1) A liable parent or an entitled carer must notify the Registrar, within 30 days of the end of each financial year, of the value of any fringe benefits, as defined in the Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986 , received during the year. (2) The regulations may set out the form in which the information required by this section is to be provided.55B Updating of value of fringe benefits received In working out a person's child support income amount in relation to the days in a child support year, the value of any fringe benefits, as defined in the Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986, received by the person during the person's last relevant year of income is to be multiplied by the inflation factor (if any) applicable to the child support year under the regulations.2 At the end of section 60Add:(4) If a person has made an election under this section and that person subsequently becomes aware that his or her income for the year is likely to vary by 15% or more than the sum estimated for the purpose of the person's election, the person must notify the registrar of the details of the estimated variation at the first available opportunity.3 After subsection 75(3)Insert:(3A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Registrar must amend any administrative assessment if satisfied that information provided by a liable parent or an entitled carer to child support establishes that the liable parent's monthly taxable income has varied by 15% or more from that recorded in that person's child support assessment.4 After section 154Insert:154A Review of certain arrangements(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of the Child Support Legislation Amendment Act 1998 the Minister must arrange for an independent inquiry to be conducted to make an assessment of and report on: (a) the impact on the relative disposable income of liable parents and custodians of the value of benefits provided by all levels of Government to parents who are recipients of benefits under the Social Security Act 1991 ; and (b) the extent to which use is made of devices to reduce income tax in order to reduce or avoid obligations under this Act.(2) The Minister must cause a copy of a report prepared under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.5 After section 159Insert: 159A Statements made recklessly etc.(1) A person who recklessly: (a) makes a statement to an officer which is false or misleading in a material particular; or (b) omits from a statement made to an officer any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading in a material particular;is guilty of an offence.Penalty: 5 penalty units(2) In a prosecution of a person for an offence against subsection (1), if, having regard to: (a) the person's abilities, experience, qualifications and other attributes; and (b) all the circumstance surrounding the alleged offence; the person has acted without taking reasonable care as to the accuracy and completeness of the statement, or with wilful disregard to the requirements to obtain and provide relevant information, the person is to be taken to have acted recklessly in making the statement.(3) A reference in subsection (1) to a statement made to an officer is a reference to a statement made to a person exercising powers under or in relation to this Act, whether the statement is made orally, in a document or in any other form, and includes, for example, a statement: (a) made in an application, form, notification, appeal or other document made, given or lodged, or purporting to be made, given or lodged, under this Act; or (b) made in answer to a question asked of the person under this Act; or (c) made in any information given or purporting to have been given, under this Act.159B Failure to notify required information(1) A person who, intentionally or recklessly, fails to notify the Registrar of information required by subsection 60(3A), or subsection 66(1A) is guilty of an offence.Penalty: 5 penalty units.(2) In a prosecution of a person for an offence against subsection (1), if, having regard to: (a) the person's abilities, experience, qualifications and other attributes; and (b) all the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence; the person has acted without reasonable care or with wilful disregard to his or her obligation to notify the Registrar as required by subsection 60(3A) or subsection 66(1A), the person is to be taken to have acted recklessly in failing to notify the Registrar.These amendments seek to give effect to the changes that I outlined in my speech on the second reading. I will just briefly digress and respond to some of the things that the minister said in the context of these amendments. We will be moving further amendments in the Senate and I welcome the spirit of goodwill that he made his comments in and I would want to be speaking to him about those amendments subsequently.Item 2 of schedule 15 of the bill seeks to alter the definition of the liable parent's child support income amount in section 38 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act to include exempt foreign income in rental property loss.Our amendment No. 1 seeks to insert a new paragraph (c) into proposed section 38 to ensure that the non-custodial parent's relevant income also includes the value of fringe benefits as defined in the Fringe Benefits Assessment Act 1986.Our amendment No. 2 does the same thing in respect of the definition of the entitled carer's child support income amount in section 45 of the act to ensure that fringe benefits are also included in the income of the non-custodial parent.Our amendment No. 3 seeks to insert a new schedule 20A into the bill and deals with the other concerns I highlighted in my speech on the second reading. Item 1 of this proposed new schedule adds new sections 55A and 55B. Proposed section 55A requires both custodial and non-custodial parents to notify the registrar within 30 days of the end of the financial year of the value of any fringe benefits received. Proposed section 55B requires the Child Support Agency to apply the relevant inflation factor in assessing the value of fringe benefits.Item 2 seeks to add a new subsection (4) to section 60 of the assessment act. Section 60 deals with the situation where a person's current income is at least 15 per cent lower than their income for the last relevant year of income and allows them to elect to have their child support liability or entitlement assessed on the basis of an estimate of their current income. Proposed subsection (4) would require a person who has made such an election to notify the registrar if he or she subsequently becomes aware that his or her income is likely to vary by at least 15 per cent of the estimate.Item 3 of the proposed new schedule seeks to add a new subsection 75(3A) requiring the registrar to amend any assessment if satisfied that information provided by a custodial or non-custodial parent establishes that there has been a variation of the relevant income of at least 15 per cent from the income recorded in the assessment.Item 4 of our proposed schedule would require the minister to establish an independent inquiry to investigate, firstly, the impact on disposable income of the value of fringe benefits provided by government to parents who are recipients of social security benefits and, secondly, the extent to which use is made of devices to reduce income tax in order to reduce or avoid their child support obligations.Item 5 seeks to introduce sections 159A and 159B into the Child Support (Assessment) Act. These sections create offences in relation to the making of false of misleading statements, or intentional or reckless omissions, and to notify the registrar of information when required. Their intention is to help ensure that the custodial and non-custodial parents alike meet their obligations in relation to the child support scheme.17:15:00218Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The government does not support the opposition's amendments to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 . They were proposed when this debate took place previously. We opposed them on that occasion and nothing has happened in the interim to lead us to change that position. We have taken on board some opposition amendments in the early stages of the debate but we do not propose to accept these.The bill makes the child support scheme more flexible and equitable. It encourages parents to cooperate in finding ways to support their children and at the same time it confirms that the parents have the primary responsibility for the support of their children.One of the amendments proposed by the opposition is intended to ensure that fringe benefits are counted as income in assessing child support. The government supports the principle of counting fringe benefits in assessing child support payments, but we are not anxious to deal with this matter in isolation. The government proposes to address this issue as part of its wider reform of the fringe benefits tax arrangements. The tax reform package will provide for fringe benefits to be included on group certificates and therefore to be included in income for child support purposes. The necessary legislation is being prepared and is expected to be introduced to the House quite soon.The second part of the opposition amendments would add a significant reporting burden to parents by requiring them to notify any changes to their income greater than 15 per cent. Changes would have to be notified on a monthly basis. These amendments would add greatly to the reporting burden of the parents with fluctuating incomes, without benefiting the children. Under the current system parents can choose to notify such changes now. The government believes there is no need for a further parliamentary inquiry into the two particular issues raised by the opposition. I referred earlier to the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues inquiry which was a very comprehensive inquiry and examined these issues with the benefit of public inquiries and the full joint powers of the houses. The government is in the process of responding to those findings and undertaking whatever consultation is necessary to address those sorts of issues.The final issue raised by the honourable member for Lilley was that the government sees no merit in duplicating the existing provisions regarding making false and misleading statements. These sorts of statements are already prohibited and we regard the existing safeguards as effective.The government believes that this bill reflects a balanced approach to the reforms of child support arrangements and we do not support the opposition's amendments. We wish that the bill will have a speedy passage.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills219r622Billsr629Bills219Debate resumed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Before I call on the honourable member for Denison, I understand that it will suit the House to have a cognate debate covering this bill and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill. If it suits the House I will allow this course of action.17:18:00219Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This legislation was introduced into the previous parliament, had passage in the House of Representatives and was brought before the Senate, and then the bill was, in the ordinary course, referred to the appropriate Senate committee, whose report, I understand, has been written but, on the prorogation of the parliament, not made available. So we come to this debate unfortunately not knowing what wisdom there might have been made available to us had that report actually been published.I commence my remarks about the specifics of this legislation by saying that the approach that we take today will be subject to any necessary adjustment as we view the report of the Senate committee. It may well be that it recommends to us amendments that would improve the legislation or require some change to it. There has also been some minor change to the legislation itself in the form in which it was first presented to the House and now comes before us.The change that I have noted in the short time that I have been able to do it is that the period for which the experimental scheme will be operating has been extended from 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2003. Whilst this may be due to delay in the legislation, the scheme will not commence as early in the financial year as might have been hoped and, therefore, one can understand it being extended for an extra year. But I guess it does present a difficulty in that the whole objective of introducing this measure was to provide a pilot so that there could be an assessment of whether or not it was an appropriate vehicle for additional support for funding for the film industry. It would be unfortunate if the process of assessment was delayed past the year 2003.There seems also to be some internal inconsistency because the period for actual fundraising seems to have not been so extended. Clause 14(2) states as follows:The total amount of concessional capital allocated by the Minister to FLICS to raise on or before 30 June 2000 must not exceed $40 million.So it would assist to identify whether there is intended to be an extension of the period for which capital can be raised, because otherwise it would seem that, whilst the scheme has been notionally extended an additional year, that may be simply to spread the cost to revenue at no additional benefit to film producers, who will be only able to receive funds which have been invested by 30 June 2000. That would not be something that the opposition would regard as an acceptable outcome, so I look forward to the minister's advice in relation to those matters.The Australian film industry has all the appearance at the present time of great strength and so it should because the Australian film industry has been a focus of a long period of strong government attention. Indeed, stemming from the days of John Gorton as Prime Minister, but then particularly through the Hawke and Keating years, Australian film has been a source of great pride to successive governments and investment designed to build an indigenous and strong film industry.A strong film industry represents jobs—and if you look now at film, television and video, there are about 40,000 Australians employed in those cultural industries—and it also gives us a great sense of our own character, as we see material produced which reflects the kind of community we are. It gives us an opportunity not merely to see material from overseas but gives us also an export opportunity as film opens doors for Australia overseas.We have had a number of films which have received international acclaim, not the least being Geoffrey Rush's Oscar for Shine. Actors have starred now through the training they have received in Australia. Most recently LA Confidential had two Australians as its leads. We have seen Australian films such as The Sound of One Hand Clapping explain to Australian communities something of the multicultural experience that many have had in this country, and they have also found a market overseas.Film is a large and important industry. We see it as something which represents more than just jobs but which, at its core, also is an industry for the future. Content is increasingly employing large numbers of Australians and we have an opportunity, if we do not undercut the achievements of the past, to build an industry of substantial national and international importance.Whilst the position looks very strong, whilst we have George Lucas proposing to invest in production of film for the Star Wars series in Sydney, whilst we have the BBC's Channel 4 putting independent money into film making, and whilst we have the Fox Studios, we also have the knowledge that, particularly at the developmental end, Australia's industry requires assistance from the community. The Gonski report, which formed the basis of the legislation currently before us, accepts that the market is not such that the community can withdraw and leave the industry to remain sustainable, particularly at the level of development and script, and research and development and that we do need to find innovative ways of raising funding for film.This is particularly important because the current government has withdrawn substantial support from the Australian film industry. The recently released Australian Film Commission survey would highlight what we have achieved. Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that Australian audiovisual production is worth about $1.3 billion. Employment figures show stunning growth in different areas of film, video and other audio vision ranging from 35 per cent to nearly 200 per cent. Figures also show that 40,000 people are employed in the industry.Yet, whilst the government claims to foster emerging film-makers and support quality film and television products, they have cut the funding for the Australian Film Finance Corporation, AFFC, by some 24 per cent and further cuts are in store in the forward estimates. The government has also abolished the commercial television production fund. Initially, the government proposed killing off low budget film funding but after a lot of community pressure they were kind enough to reduce the funding by only 50 per cent!I mentioned the special production funding, which is an important area because it is an incubator of talent. It is an investment in people, in projects and in the future, with all the excitement and possibilities of big-time outcomes. The social and cultural benefits which can flow from this kind of investment mean it should not be simply market based. But, since coming to office, the Howard government has cut funding for Australian screen culture by 20 per cent. Forward estimates figures show a further cut of just under 50 per cent by the years 2001 and 2002.The Gonski report, which was the springboard for this legislation, also recommended, as a minimum, three times the funding that the government has seen fit to provide for script development. At a time when our major competitors are gearing up investment in this area, the government has not met that challenge.This particular legislation was put forward initially to replace funding that currently goes to film under section 10BA of the income tax act. Fortunately, the government did not pursue that course and accepted the criticism from the arts community that this should be seen as a trial, to see how effective it is. They have responded to a large number of concerns from the Screen Producers Association of Australia, and others, that this legislation may not succeed in its intentions. I would hate to see either the Film Finance Corporation or section 10BA be reduced in terms of the funding that will go into this industry before we are able to see whether this trial is the success which we hope it to be.Even if it is a success, we would need to continue to have the sources of funding that currently go into Australian film maintained so that we do not have a situation where, having built an industry and having established its framework, we then cut the ground away from those things which enable it to continue to develop, to bring in new talent, to fund low budget productions and the like.It must not be thought that the opposition believes that all film must be funded through public funding. A lot of exciting work is being done, with no subsidy at all. But the Gonski report clearly says to government that market imperfections are such that the industry cannot maintain itself without support. It will fall over. It will not remain strong or maintain the opportunities needed for a growing investment in the future unless we provide funding mechanisms of the kind which are represented by the Film Finance Corporation, section 10BA and, of course, this present trial.There are a couple of issues involved in the trial, and time will tell how successful it will be. It is not exactly what Gonski recommended. Gonski recommended that the tax arrangements should be that you could write off 120 per cent of the investment. He argued that this would be a means of providing an adequate investment framework. The government has chosen not to proceed down that course but rather to set the write-down to 100 per cent. Gonski recommended that there be an adjustment on capital gains so that gains that are acquired from a successful film are not rated back as if the investment were zero in the first place, so that every dollar of gain is subject to capital gains tax. He recommended that it be based on a method that really does respect that there is an element of risk venture in funding film. The government has not seen fit to accommodate that.The Gonski proposal was also expressed in a way which dealt with continuing support for script development and small productions and, as I have mentioned, there have been substantial cuts in funding for that basic infrastructure required by a successful industry. Some concerns have been publicly expressed by those in the industry that this method of seeking investment funds in film from the business community may not be as successful as the government would hope. But there is no reason not to give it a trial. My predecessor, the then shadow Bob McMullan, said that we could support this bill provided it is supplemental to existing funding.I would like assurances from the minister that will condition our response in the Senate. Currently, forward estimates provide that funding for the Australian Film Finance Corporation expires at the end of the current triennium. In order words, it is `zeroed', in the jargon of the finance bureaucrats, after the current triennium funding is concluded. It is widely thought that the government may review this. I would just like to say that our support for this legislation would be much less conditional if the government would simply say what many expect it to actually do in the future, and that is to say that once that triennium is completed there is an intention to enter into a future funding round for the subsequent triennium. If this is a stalking horse to kill off the funding through the Film Finance Corporation, it is retrograde and inappropriate policy, and it will be a marker for the death of a very substantial part of the Australian indigenous film industry.We do have great challenges. Film is one of those industries which is inherently important because of its localism and the voice it gives to us as Australians, yet that voice is part of an industry which is inherently international. So we are dealing with both of those issues at the same time. Film needs to be diverse; it gives a sense of great pride. Very few Australians would not recognise it as part of their cultural traditions now, just as we once might have thought of poetry like The Man from Snowy River. We now value films like Gallipoli and all the films that we have grown up with as part of the Australian experience. To lose that would be to throw out a valued strand of Australian culture.We must not believe that this cannot happen. It has happened before. It happened in Britain during the 1970s, where they became basically a production facility for overseas films. We have to make sure that there is a proper basis for there being a continuing and strong national film industry, recognising that a diversity of sources of funding is necessary for a diverse industry and to give us a community voice, to nourish this, to give Australians a sense of optimism, engagement and excitement, and also to make sure that there is a diversity where governments do not get involved directly in decisions about which films will be made.Far too often we hear voices raised about films being provocative. I know that voices are raised from time to time about Australian films like Head On. It is a provoking film. But it is not, I think, a good thing for governments, when these issues are raised, to in a sense try to dictate the course of the cultural and community responses by using funding mechanisms to deal with these. That is one of the things that is actually good about this particular legislation—that government does not have any direct hands-on in relation to what projects are funded.And this trial means, if it succeeds, that there will be more need than ever for things like the Film Finance Corporation. There are two reasons. One is that the Film Finance Corporation currently asks, as part of its criteria, `Could this film be funded from commercial sources without government assistance?' So it will sometimes turn down perfectly good proposals because it recognises that they can generate those funds from the market—and why put in public funds in those circumstances? FLICs are market based mechanisms which means that they will fund the sorts of proposals that will be attractive to FLIC investors. You will still need to have something like the Film Finance Corporation to address those proposals which cannot raise funds directly off the commercial market.The other reason is that, of necessity, the focus of these larger film conglomerate investors will be Sydney-Melbourne. Sydney and Melbourne both have the scale to demand the attention of investors and film-makers. But there has been a tremendous amount of very good film generated from South Australia, from Tasmania recently, and from other states and territories.It is important to make sure that there is a mix and diversity of funding sources to ensure that we do not either—as I have indicated could occur—become principally a production house for overseas investors or develop a system of funding which channels money through only established film-makers focused in a couple of the capital cities. Those would be very regressive outcomes and that is why you need a range of different funding methods to ensure diversity.Let me conclude by saying that, when this bill first came before the House of Representatives, the opposition proposed a second reading amendment which indicated that, whilst not declining to give this bill a second reading, we would criticise the government for withdrawing a substantial amount of support for film over the past period of three years. I resile from none of those criticisms. But, in view of the circumstances in which this bill comes before us, and because everyone agrees that we should move forward as quickly as possible to give it passage in a cooperative way, I do not propose to take up time with moving such amendments. The criticism stands and it is self-evident and it ought to be addressed by this government.We will, however, want to have a close look at the Senate report. It may suggest some constructive amendments; it may suggest that we take even further measures; it may suggest we not support it. We have not seen the Senate report so it would be useful to see it and we would like the minister to give the assurances that I have sought, particularly an assurance as to the ongoing commitment to the Film Finance Corporation which in forward estimates in the budget is not funded past the current triennium. If we felt that this was simply a stalking horse or a device to kill off the Film Finance Corporation, then our attitude would be very different. The whole basis upon which it has our support—and it has been put forward publicly—is that it is a trial supplemental to current funding arrangements which would remain undisturbed.With those remarks I am happy to indicate that we will not oppose this legislation through the House. We look forward to it going to the Senate. We would anticipate that the government cooperate to re-establish a committee to look at it in the Senate but, as there is a report which has basically been drafted and ready for publication, I would anticipate that we could deal with the Senate inquiry in a very expedient way with a very short time required for a report. Once we see that report then, obviously, we can adjust any position as necessary.I thank the chamber for the opportunity to make some remarks in relation to this legislation and hope that the strong work that has gone into building a great Australian film industry is not undermined by meanness of spirit. Strong as the industry currently is, we will fail if we do not recognise that that strength has grown upon a base which, if removed, will eventually cause a corrosion of the spirit, vitality and capacity of the industry to employ Australians.17:44:00224Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am pleased to rise on this matter again, a matter of leftover business from the 38th parliament. On 28 May the predecessor of the member for Denison, in the shadow ministerial role, agreed broadly with the principle of the bill. The then member for Canberra, Bob McMullan, who is now the member for Fraser, made similar points at the time. Essentially, the point I made in rebuttal to those points I will make again: $27 million out, $40 million in. That is what the government has done because this is a vehicle for real investment in a real industry. It is not an industry that is a by-product of some sheltered workshop which seems to be the basis of the Labor Party's argument—that, if you do not have government involved in the constant financing of films and television in this country, it is not going to happen.It is important also to correct a number of the falsehoods from the member for Denison in his contribution today. I am sure that, as he gets the brief of this particular portfolio, he will realise, when he looks back on this speech, that to make a suggestion as regards the Film Finance Corporation being under some sort of threat by this government is to turn your back completely on the central premise of the success of the Film Finance Corporation; and that is that this is a government instrumentality which rightly looks around for success. It views in a professional way, based on both cultural and artistic values, the short films, motion pictures and scripts that are submitted to it, makes suggestions to potential producers and potential recipients of assistance about ways to improve those scripts, and finances them accordingly. It provides seed money, provides incentive, provides a signal to the market that this is a worthwhile project. And guess what? There is great success that comes out of the Film Finance Corporation.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Why don't you give the assurance I've asked for?CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—This is a government which rewards success. We are not in the business of rewarding lethargy. We are in the business of rewarding success. The Film Finance Corporation also makes available money, in limited amounts and under rules and regulations, to those sorts of projects which have no market value but which have intrinsic cultural and artistic value: it is all about developing an important and growing industry.The member for Denison wants to know why there is not some assurance about the continuation of funding. That is just one of those typical cheap-shot, budgetary, bureaucratic nonsenses that we hear normally in the first year of every government. You are not going to see any line in a budget paper past three years. It is just a simple matter of procedure that there is a zero in the column after the third year. So what?The government is very committed to the Film Finance Corporation because it is successful. It is producing results; it is turning out onto the world stage movies like Shine—which, by the way, is the movie that Geoffrey Rush won the award for—Muriel's Wedding, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Strictly Ballroom, which have all gone on to be huge commercial successes because of the professional people who are involved in the Film Finance Corporation—people who will continue to be encouraged by this government as it seeks excellence in an important industry.The other thing the member for Denison talks about is the Commercial Television Production Fund. Essentially, the premise of what he is saying is that the Labor Party does not want money turned into vital expenditure, such as for the poor and the elderly in my electorate of Moreton; it prefers me to look them in the eye and say, `No. We're going to give it to Kerry Packer and to Kerry Stokes, because they've got to be able to produce television programs. Never mind the fact that you haven't got enough food; Labor says, "Let's not give you cake. We'll give you a television program instead."'RH4KERRMr Kerr—You are a cheapjack.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—The member for Denison can say `cheap' all he likes; but, at the end of the day, the government has got a responsibility also to the children of tomorrow to run the economy properly. The other half of the premise that the member for Denison has put in his contribution today is `Go further into debt. Clock up more money and just throw money at the problem.' If throwing money at a problem had fixed problems, the Keating government would have gone down in history as successful—and, of course, it never shall, unless the Labor Party gets back into the treasury bench and starts handing money out for things like artists-in-residence in trade union movements all around this country so that they can try and organise the cultural history of this nation in some particular way.The other ruse that the member for Denison has offered today is the question of 10BA under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Now 10BA stays—and Gonski, in fact, had recommended in his report that you replace 10BA with FLICs. Acting cautiously, in the spirit of being a responsible government, handling the finances of this nation well, as well as encouraging a vital industry like the film and television production industry, the government has said that 10BA stays. At the same time, it has put together the film licence investment company concept to encourage greater investment into this particular sector.If those opposite were truly interested in advancing the cause of television and film production in this country, as we always seem to hear at glitzy, once every three years presentations where they troop out ex-prime ministers—except for the one, Mr Keating, whom they sent off overseas during the most recent election campaign—and if the Labor Party were truly interested in this particular sector, they would not try the constant stunts of delays in the Senate; they would get this bill passed.We have had to bring in a number of amendments relating to the particular dates that this bill will work towards because of those deliberate delays, not based on good policy but just based on cheap politics, in the Senate. The simple amendment we have put forward is that investing capital has to be secured by 30 June 2002. It was 2001. The particular film involved has to be completed by 30 April 2003. It was 2002. Essentially, what the government is doing is extending the concept of FLIC by 14 months to accommodate those sorts of delays that I fear the member for Denison, as he learns his portfolio brief, will probably inspire amongst his Senate colleagues.Over time I am certain that this government will continue to promote the mature growth that we are now starting to experience in this sector. The industry is employing a lot of people; it is making a mark on the world stage. We do not need to go back to the cultural cringe concept of a by-product of a sheltered workshop industry. We need to give it life. We need to give it incentive. This bill, this approach, is an experiment—yes—but it is an experiment worth working for because, after all, what we want to get is those people in Australia, those people in the world who have an interest in earning a dollar out of investing in a worthwhile project, to do so. That is what this bill does and I look forward to further debates with the member for Denison on these matters and others in the future.17:51:00226McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—I wish to thank the member for Denison for his cooperation in allowing us to expedite this very important bill, the Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998 , through the lower House. It is extremely important because we need investment. Under the legislation the investment will now need to be completed by 30 June 2002 instead of an earlier period. The deadline for the completion of films is now 30 April 2003 instead of 30 April 2002, which allows for a more realistic time frame for finalising investment and the completion of projects.I was much inspired by the contribution by the member for Moreton. He is a man who has an abiding interest in film and television production and development. I thought he made a most constructive, if at times provocative, contribution. He is a person of strong views. They are ideas and concepts that should be tested against established policy in the best traditions of policy formulation.The member for Denison, having cooperated in the speedy passage of this reintroduced bill, did let himself down a little bit with the hoary old chestnut of `why don't we make section 10B more attractive by a 120 per cent deduction instead of the—RH4KERRMr Kerr—No, in this bill.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—I see. I stand corrected, but I do not remember it being a Labor Party commitment during the last election. It is one of those things that oppositions do, although not in my lifetime, and that is hold out the promise of grand funding without ever committing to paper.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I said that was a criticism of the industry.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Would you commit the opposition?RH4KERRMr Kerr—We'll suck it and see.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—That is a very sophisticated, encouraging response for the film industry.RH4KERRMr Kerr—As long as you do not undercut the other funding agents we are happy.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—May I move to that point, following the interjection by the member for Denison, because he has mischievously been trying to create an impression that the FLIC is a replacement of funding for the Film Finance Corporation. It is most disappointing. That is a scare campaign that does not reflect particularly well on him.MG4LEEMr Lee—We guaranteed the funding—XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The member for Dobell, a former minister for the arts and somebody who built largely his reputation in that area on film funding, would know the procedure. The Film Finance Corporation has triennial funding and you do not go beyond that in forward estimates. It is an established budgetary process and practice that extends back decades. The triennial funding—MG4LEEMr Lee—It was a discretion.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—For a non-controversial chamber we do stir things up a little bit. Why do I not, Madam Deputy Speaker, move quickly to a conclusion?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—I say to the honourable member for Denison: you were listened to with great courtesy by other members; please extend that to the minister.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Film Finance Corporation has funding locked in at over $48 million a year until the year 2000-2001; it has triennial funding which obviously allows the government flexibility in setting levels in response to industry needs. The Australian Film Commission funding is stabilised and the government has asked the AFC to investigate ways to redirect funding to the important area of script development and the industry is in very good health. As I said in my second reading speech in another place, earlier today, and I quote exactly again so there will be no misunderstanding or misinterpretation by my opposite number:The FLIC does not replace any existing funding for the industry, rather it will complement those programs. The government recognises the vulnerability of the industry, especially for some of the most culturally sensitive genres, and the need for certainty for investors and producers alike. Forward funding for the Australian Film Commission and the Australian Film Finance Corporation was confirmed in the 1997-98 budget, and the continuation of film agencies was confirmed in the government's response to Mr Gonski's report in November 1997.I hope that settles the matter once and for all for the shadow minister and we can unite in promoting a vital, social, cultural and financial industry in Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills227r629227Consideration resumed.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—The question is that the bill now be read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills228r614228Consideration resumed.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills228r623228Debate resumed.18:00:00228Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—For the 3.2 million individual students at Australian schools few things are as important as their right to a decent opportunity to read, write and understand maths at an early age. Few things are as important as their right to learn about our country, the evolution of our civilisation and our language. Few things are as important as their right to develop the confidence to ask difficult questions in science or personal development or to excel in music or sport.We, as members of the Australian parliament, have a responsibility to each of those 3.2 million students, wherever they live and whatever their family circumstances, to provide them with the best possible start in life. In no small way, the future of our nation depends on how well we meet that responsibility. The challenge for teachers, principals and parents; federal and state education departments; government, Catholic and independent school systems and, most importantly, students is this: in the next century the breadth of our skills and the depth of our knowledge based industries and the reputation of our education providers and researchers will be more important than the value and size of any particular factory or mine that might open in Australia.Research on new ways to process minerals which will generate minerals processing patents will be more important than finding a new ore body. The ability to develop new computer software will be more important than the ability to assemble a computer in future years. For these reasons, this bill, which allocates federal funding to primary and secondary schools throughout the country, is a very important piece of legislation.In many ways this legislation seeks to give effect to decisions that were announced in the 1998 budget. Some of this legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives on 25 June 1998 and it is quite disturbing that, with a few weeks to go before the end of this calendar year, this parliament is debating how much money should be allocated to schools from 1 January next year.I might be showing my age. When I was first elected to this parliament, after the budget was read out by the Treasurer on budget night, a series of ministers would stand in the House of Representatives and introduce all of the budget bills. All of the budget bills for funding schools would be introduced on budget night. The minister for education would stand up on budget night in the House of Representatives and introduce the bills that funded various payments. Certainly the Treasurer would introduce bills that would implement changes in various payments and various decisions that had been made by the government. Yet here we are, a few weeks before these bills need to actually provide the funds to our schools, trying to get them through this parliament in a very speedy manner. I will say a bit more about the government's attempts to have these pieces of legislation passed through quickly in the discussion about the next piece of legislation.There are perhaps a few issues that need to be dealt with on this piece of legislation. It provides $40.2 million to extend the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Program through to the end of 1999. This program was an initiative commenced by the former federal Labor government in 1994. This might be an opportunity to place on record the great debt which is owed to the former Queensland Premier Wayne Goss for this program being introduced by the former Labor government. I should also place on record the role played by the newly elected member for Griffith, Kevin Rudd, as the then head of the cabinet office of the Goss Labor government. He played a very important role in making sure that this National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Program was initiated by that former Labor government.A few questions have arisen because of various promises that were made by the coalition before the last election. The Howard-Fischer government gave a promise in the last election campaign in its election policy—and I draw it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary in particular. At the last election her party promised to:Provide an additional $90 million over three years for the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy.In the education policy that the Liberal Party launched during the election they promised an additional $90 million over three years. This piece of legislation provides $40 million for 1999. What we would like to know in the parliamentary secretary's summing up is whether this $40 million is part of the $90 million that was promised in that election policy. We would also like to know what that promise of an additional $90 million over three years really means for the program.Does it mean that it is $90 million on top of the annual amounts that were paid over the last three years, for which there is no funding in the next few years, or does it mean that the $40 million in this piece of legislation leaves us with a balance of $50 million for the next two years for this excellent program? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might like to make some inquiries about that. We would be very interested in any response which she can provide today on the future of the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy.The other point is that this piece of legislation also provides $20 million for the so-called full service schools initiative which is, according to the government, meant to provide compensation to schools to help them cope with the influx of additional students which will inevitably occur because of the changes that this government is making to youth allowance.We know that the government postponed the date for that and that 1 January will be the date on which 16- and 17-year-olds will transfer from the youth training allowance to the new youth allowance. It means that there will be a large number of 16- and 17-year-olds who will be expected to attend senior secondary school because of the policy changes that the government has made. The concern I have is with the impact that this will have on those schools. What will be the impact of this policy change on the resource needs of secondary schools across Australia?The government says it is providing an extra $20 million to compensate schools for these changes and yet it is now public knowledge that the minister's own department prepared a cabinet submission recommending an additional expenditure of $140 million to help schools cope with the influx of students as a result of the youth allowance changes. Quite clearly, if the minister believed the cabinet submission that was prepared by his department, this package falls short by $100 million.I can also make it clear that the government claimed that it would be putting $20 million into two other programs—$13.5 million for the Jobs Pathway Program and $6.2 million for the New Apprenticeships Access Program. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are aware that the former Labor government initiated those two particular programs. We established the Jobs Pathway Guarantee and the Pre-Vocational Places Program, which was simply rebadged and renamed the New Apprenticeships Access Program. Labor certainly believes that there will be a need to put extra resources into secondary schools, if the government increases the number of students attending schools.The other disappointment is that the government has not been prepared to take note of another recommendation which was made by the minister's department in that cabinet submission. The submission recommended that the government `resuscitate' the Students at Risk Program. That program tried to identify those students that were at risk of leaving school early. Funding for that program ran out in late 1996. It is quite clear that this minister for education intends to ignore the recommendation in his department's draft submission that the program be resuscitated.That was an excellent program and I am disappointed that the government has not been prepared to take account of the very careful views—I am sure—that have come through his own department in the preparation of that draft cabinet submission. We are concerned that up to 27,000 16- and 17-year-olds will be returning to school next year due to the government's policy changes on youth allowance.These young people will need special help with literacy and numeracy programs. In many cases what they will need will amount to individual case management. That is not only to make sure that they get the full benefit of attending classes at school every day, but also to make sure that other students are not receiving a lower quality of education because of the increase in the number of students attending schools. There are a whole series of issues that arise as a result of the changes that this government is making to youth allowance.In many cases what they will need will amount to individual case management. That is not only to make sure that they get the full benefit of attending classes at school every day but also to make sure that other students are not receiving a lower quality education because of the increase in the number of students attending schools. There is a whole series of issues that arise as a result of the changes that this government is making to youth allowance.The young people affected by this policy change are heavily concentrated in areas of high unemployment. I will quickly run through a few examples from my own state of New South Wales. If you look at the postcodes of those people who are currently receiving youth training allowance, it is clear that you could have, for example, 280 16- and 17-year-olds in the Mount Druitt area returning to school or 220 in Campbelltown or 160 at Liverpool or 120 at Lake Illawarra or 127 in Gosford, in my electorate. But there are only three in places like Manly. The postcode information indicates that there is only one 16- or 17-year-old receiving youth training allowance in Cammeray and only one in Killara.It is quite clear that the schools in the areas that have the highest rates of youth unemployment are going to be the schools that are hardest hit by this government's policy changes. They should be the schools that are receiving the extra $140 million that the minister's own department recommended should be provided to secondary schools to cope with the changes that result from the new youth allowance. It is quite clear that these are the schools that need the extra help that is being denied by this government.These are not just the views of the Labor Party. If you look carefully at the views that were expressed by the former coalition minister for education in Queensland, it was certainly that minister's view that an extra $7,000 per student should be provided to make sure that a quality education is being provided to each of those additional students.The additional federal funding that flows to those government schools in Queensland only amounts to one-tenth of that amount. So, while the students are returning to schools in areas of high unemployment, the federal government is only providing one-tenth of the recurrent funding that is needed to provide the quality education for those students.It is clear that this title `full service schools' is inappropriate. It is typical of the overblown rhetoric that we have come to expect from this minister, with reality falling far short of the promises made in his own words.Steering committees have been set up in each state to take submissions for funding for these amounts that have been provided to full service schools. Quite a few principals have already told me that there are schools that have not even bothered to lodge submissions because they are so disheartened by the quantum of funds which is available.This bill also provides funding for flexibility of funding allocations under the literacy and country areas program, so that the most recent ABS census data can be used for determining relative need. The bill also inserts amounts for capital funding for non-government schools up to 2003. It only provides $74 million each year from 2000. This amount declines from $84.6 million in 1999 and is $40 million less than the $113 million provided by the Labor government in 1996 for non-government schools capital funding.So, at a time of growing capital needs in the non-government sector, it would be interesting if the parliamentary secretary could get the minister to justify these continuing cuts to non-government capital funding. I would be very interested in any comments the parliamentary secretary had on that as well.The amounts provided for recurrent and capital expenditure for 1997 and subsequent years are adjusted by this bill for the most recent rounds of supplementation. This minister has a history of incorporating nominal increases for supplementation as part of his attempts to distort the schools funding figures to claim credit for non-existent increases. The minister has a habit of making year-on-year comparisons between funding sums that are not in real terms.Any discussion about school funding cannot pass without some mention of the enrolment benchmark adjustment. In 1997, almost every state and territory increased its enrolments in government schools. Yet every state except Tasmania was subject to the EBA. For enrolling 8,495 extra students, government schools lost $11.9 million through this coalition policy. This equates to a loss of $1,813 for every government school in Australia.The former schools minister said in a media release on 24 May, `Any suggestion that the government has decreased funding to government schools is wrong.' The minister should explain how giving schools less money for more students is not decreasing funding. While the opposition is not opposing this bill, we have serious concerns about the direction of schools policy under the coalition and under this minister.I notice Bruce Juddery, I think in the Australian, had an article drawing to everyone's attention the fact that, under the changes the Prime Minister has made to the education policy, Dr Kemp, the minister for education, has had his portfolio responsibilities halved. In most circumstances, having a minister solely concerned with education might be considered a plus. Mr Juddery made reference to the fact that usually this would be seen as recognition that the government finally is giving education the sort of priority it deserves. But when that minister is David Kemp, when that minister is the current minister for education with his well-known ideological obsessions, with his well-known track record of distorting facts and manipulating figures, with his record as the father of the Job Network disaster, this change—that he is now going to focus and give all of his energy to education—could bode ill for this portfolio for a number of years to come.I formally move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading: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 condemns the government for damaging Australia's schools, including by failing to provide them with adequate resources to cope with the expected increase of up to 27,000 students a year as a result of the introduction of the youth allowance.'We believe that the federal government should be providing the extra $140 million a year that the department of education's draft cabinet submission recommended. We believe that all students will suffer because this government has not been prepared to put the extra funding into schools that is required to meet the extra needs, the extra demand, that will follow as a result of the changes that this government is making in youth allowance policy.We believe that every Australian student, wherever they live and whatever their family circumstances, is entitled to the best possible start in life. These changes and the other funding cuts that this government has made to education do not guarantee that every Australian student gets that best start in life. They are the issues that we will be raising in future debates on education.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—Is the amendment seconded?QK6SERCOMBEMr Sercombe—I second the amendment.18:18:00233Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1998 . The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the initiative announced in the 1998-99 federal budget. Standing here today, I guess it feels like an eternity has passed since the 1998-99 budget was handed down. It was an important budget in that it was a budget that saw the Australian economy go back in the black and back on track.Today we are dealing with a small but important part of that budget—namely, the introduction of full service schools over three years and the extension of the National Asian Language and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy. The government is providing an additional $40.2 million over two years from 1998 to support, enhance and expand Asian languages and studies through our school system. It is a very positive decision and one that I welcome. I also acknowledge the opposition's support for this extension.I recall speaking on the 1996 states grants bill for primary and secondary education. At that time the Asian economic crisis was still far from the front pages of the national newspapers. Indeed, many strategic analysts were publicly saying that the outlook for the Asia-Pacific had never looked so secure.We live in a very different region economically from that of two years ago. While Australia has weathered the Asian economic crisis well, many of our regional neighbours have not. This, however, does not diminish the importance of the Asia-Pacific area to Australia. Countries like Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and China all remain very important trading markets for Australian exporters, and particularly so for North Queensland exporters. While the Asian economic crisis has in many ways hampered trade in our region—and in your region, too, Madam Deputy Speaker—it has also created many new opportunities for Australia. The economic potential of the Asia-Pacific region is still very significant. We should not close our doors to those opportunities.I said in this place two years ago that exporters in Townsville and in North Queensland should be doing everything they can to try to break into those new and emerging market opportunities. We, after all, are on the doorstep of the Asia-Pacific region. The $40 million expansion of the NALSAS strategy is a positive step towards preparing now for Australia's greater economic involvement and engagement in the Asia-Pacific region in the future.As I said earlier, the other major points that this bill deals with are the measures to provide $20 million over three years for schools to develop programs and innovative services to address the special needs of young people who are at risk of not completing year 12.I think that the Deputy Prime Minister summed up the youth allowance very well when he said that it was not about putting the unemployed down but, rather, about bringing students up. I acknowledge that there have been some problems with the introduction of the youth allowance. With any social reform of this size, there always is. But overall, and particularly in my area, it has been widely welcomed.The goals of the youth allowance remain clear: bring students up; give them incentives to stay in schools; provide them with the same level of financial support as we give to the unemployed; and provide adequate traineeship and apprenticeship opportunities for those who do not choose higher education.One of the intended effects of the youth allowance was to encourage students to complete their secondary education. I quote from the honourable member for Goldstein's second reading speech:In recognition of the possible additional costs associated with these high needs students, the Commonwealth has established the full service schools program.The full service schools program is intended to provide supplementary assistance to schools to enable them to effectively meet the needs of students who are likely to return to or remain at school. It will also build on the range of other initiatives that the government has already put in place.A result of part of the funding in this bill tonight was seen at an opening in my electorate today at St Anthony's School, Deeragun. It was unfortunate that I was unable to attend that particular opening, because we are here in Canberra, but money that is being provided in the budget will affect that school in the Catholic system in my electorate of Herbert. I am pleased to support this bill, and I recommend that it obtain the support of the parliament.18:24:00234Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I would like to thank the members who have taken part in this debate, the member for Dobell and the member for Herbert. I will perhaps enlighten the member for Dobell on a couple of issues which he raised. I inform him that direct funding to government schools has in fact risen by $200 million since 1996. I further inform him that the minister is the minister not only for education but also for training and youth affairs, very important areas not only for those undertaking formal schooling and higher education but for those who are training for skills they are going to need in the future. The youth affairs portfolio is very important, and any one of us who can raise the image of young Australians is playing an important role.The member for Dobell raised issues of promised funding of $90 million in the election campaign, and I have to inform him that the government will need to give detailed consideration to election promised funds in the normal budget process and find out the best ways of spending that money.He also raised issues about the $21 million and whether in fact this was going to be adequate funding for the full service for schools program. Of course, this $21 million is intended to provide supplementary assistance to schools to enable them to effectively meet the needs of students who are likely to return to or remain at school, and it will build on a wide range of programs and initiatives that are already in place.I remind the member for Dobell that not all students returning to or remaining at schools will require special assistance and services. Many will be catered for by the normal funding arrangements. All students who return to or remain at school will attract general recurrent funding at an amount per student in accordance with government policy. Of course, the needs of students for physical facilities will be taken into account in the assessment for capital funding under the Capital Grants Program. These students may also be eligible to access other special purposes and targeted program funding provided to state and territory education authorities by the Commonwealth.The member for Herbert mentioned the Youth Allowance Scheme which began on 1 July 1998. Despite attacks from the opposition, this really is a major social policy reform because it provides financial incentives for young people to develop skills that they really do desperately need to improve their chances of finding a job. There has been a lack of balance and fairness between students who were tempted to leave school at a vulnerable age so that they could collect unemployment benefits and those who continued to study and had to work that much harder for it; although at the same time bettering themselves, they were, by comparison, being financially disadvantaged. I commend the member for Herbert for raising these issues. Again, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and commend the bill to the parliament.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Dobell has moved an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.Question resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills235r624235Consideration resumed.UNKNOWNMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs De-Anne Kelly)—The question is that the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills235r595235Debate resumed.18:31:00235Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Kim Beazley wants to be known as the education Prime Minister, so I am honoured to be asked by him to be Labor's education spokesman. In some ways education is both an inspirational and a depressing portfolio, and it is still inspirational and depressing with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the chair as well. It is inspirational because of the importance of education from early childhood to school, to vocational education, to university, in shaping our society, our nation and our economy.Education is an inspirational portfolio because education is about our future and our ability to shape that future for our children and ourselves. Our primary schools play a vital role in teaching our young children about working, learning and playing together, as well as laying the foundations for a life of learning. Our high schools help our young people set themselves goals and give them the tools to pursue them. Vocational educational colleges help develop those skills for younger Australians to equip them for their careers. Universities push our best students to academic excellence and prepare our next generation of teachers, engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and even politicians. They extend our knowledge of the physical and social world in which we live and, through research, contribute to improving our health, our society and the growth and future of our economy and our nation.Education is not a once-only process which finishes at 25. More and more Australians are going back to university or their local TAFE college or adult education centre to broaden their education, to improve their chances of promotion, or to completely change their careers. To foster an Australian culture of lifelong learning is one of the great challenges facing Australia now. Education is an inspirational portfolio because of the phenomenal success of Australia's educational institutions in exporting their expertise and attracting very large numbers of overseas students. Australia's education exports now contribute more than $3 billion to our economy. It is hard to think of a more important area in deciding the kind of Australia in which we want to live.Unfortunately, education is also, sadly, a depressing portfolio because of the untold damage that is being done to our schools and universities, our teachers and our students, by the coalition government through the slashing of funding to schools and universities, the massive barrier of doubled HECS fees driving down university applications, and the looming spectre of the GST adding to the cost of books, software, the Internet, food, clothing, public transport—for teachers and students alike. It will be increasingly difficult to maintain the clever country with such stupid government decisions as these.I said during the last debate that I would make a few remarks about the processes that have been involved in dealing with this particular bill. Governments and oppositions, of course, do not always agree and there will be occasions when there are differences on issues in this portfolio. But you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this parliament only works through the cooperation of both sides of politics in making sure we have a commonsense attitude to the way legislation is dealt with in this parliament. I learnt from the former member for New England on several occasions that an effective opposition can bring the parliament to a halt. If oppositions want to and if they are effective they can make it almost impossible for governments to have legislation pass through this parliament. Thankfully, there are very few occasions when oppositions seek, or are forced, to use the standing orders to that extent.The point I am trying to make is that I have taken over this responsibility in education with the intention of trying to work constructively with the government and to work in a way that allows proper consideration of legislation in the parliament. We will not seek to unnecessarily delay the passage of legislation but we do believe that important pieces of legislation are entitled to have a fair amount of time for consideration in this parliament. We do not believe that this has been the case with the piece of legislation which we are debating this afternoon.It is true that part of this piece of legislation was dealt with by the previous parliament but was not passed by both houses of the parliament; that is why it is back here. It is also true that part of this legislation was introduced only into the House of Representatives and that it did not have a reasonable opportunity to be debated. Even if we allow for the fact that the government introduced both halves of this bill into the last parliament, it has made changes in bringing those two pieces of legislation together into a new bill, and that should allow the opposition in the Australian parliament a chance to consider the changes that the government has made in this new piece of legislation. It has redrafted two pieces of legislation into one new, consolidated piece.The opposition was only given a draft copy of the legislation less than 24 hours ago. We had a party meeting on Tuesday. We were given a draft copy of the legislation on Tuesday afternoon after our parliamentary party had finished its meeting. There was no opportunity for me and my staff to give proper consideration to this piece of legislation, to take a recommendation to the shadow ministry, let alone to give the members of the parliamentary Labor Party and the caucus committee an opportunity to consider this before going to the full party meeting.I would like to use this opportunity to say that our cooperation on future pieces of legislation on education is conditional upon the minister and the parliamentary secretary—I know she does not have full control over all of these issues—giving us sufficient time to take pieces of legislation to the shadow ministry, our parliamentary party committees and the Labor parliamentary party's caucus meetings. If the government is not prepared to give us sufficient time to allow our members to consider this legislation, then the government is on notice today that we will use the standing orders of the parliament to give the parliament a right to consider legislation in a proper manner. The reason we have not done that today is that we know there are a number of institutions that will need the money on 1 January. So we are going to allow this legislation to pass, even though there has not been sufficient opportunity to consider the legislation today. I repeat once again to the parliamentary secretary, and through her to the minister, that this is the last occasion on which we will allow the government to steamroll legislation on education through this parliament without there being sufficient and fair opportunity for the party that got 51 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to consider the Howard government's intentions.Having mentioned that we had less than 24 hours to consider the draft legislation, I would also point out that late last night we were given a further government amendment, which makes the sins of omission even worse—added to by a sin of commission, I suspect. Either way, we will not be allowing the government to treat the parliament with such contempt in future on education.In many ways, this is a very bad start for dealing with legislation on education, and we can only hope that the government gets its act together in future. It is pretty rough to be forcing two such vitally important education bills through the House without any meaningful debate. If the government had had the courage to legislate its funding cuts when they were first announced in 1996 in tertiary education, or in 1997, or even in early 1998, then we would not be faced with the ridiculous situation now where we will be forced to pass this bill almost without debate six weeks before university funding runs out completely.The minister should have had plenty of time to concentrate on education now that his portfolio responsibilities have been halved, but he has not done too well on this first test. We believe that this is an issue that requires more attention in future.Before the 1996 election the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister of Australia, said the following:A Howard government will maintain levels of funding to universities in terms of operating grants.The main provision of this bill is to belatedly legislate the government's massive cuts of $840 million to Australia's universities. These cuts correspond to a loss of 21,000 university places. How can we be a clever country when there are such stupid government decisions? The government announced these massive cuts more than two years ago but it is not until now, with less than two months to go before the money runs out, that the government has finally gotten around to legislating them. Australia's universities have been on death row for more than two years but it is only with the passage of this bill that we actually see Dr Kemp take them out and shoot them.In 1999, university operating grants will fall by $590 million. In the year 2000 they are slashed by a further $140 million to a level $730 million below their funding level in 1998. This highlights the tragic, downward trend as the government fails to realise the importance of higher education to individuals and to the nation, and it demonstrates it is treating education simply as a cost to the budget which must be reduced, however possible.The government will no doubt trumpet the fact that this bill restores funding for the 450 places it cut at James Cook University. It would have been interesting if the member for Herbert were still in the Main Committee to respond to these remarks. Whilst the restoration of those places at James Cook University is very welcome, we would like to ask the government when it intends to restore the rest of the 21,000 places that the Howard government has cut from Australia's 37 other universities in other less marginal and safe seats.Could I also point out that if the member for Herbert had been here I would have asked him to explain to us what the government's plans are for the future medical school at James Cook University. During the election campaign he and I exchanged press releases on the future medical school at Townsville. I was certainly very proud to have stood with my former colleague the Hon. Ted Lindsay—unfortunately, the unsuccessful Labor candidate in Herbert at the last election—when we announced that the Labor Party intended to put funding in to establish that medical school at James Cook University. We also went as far as to promise that as soon as accreditation was received by the Australian Medical Council we would allow that medical school to be run by James Cook University.I did say at the time that if the Prime Minister matched our promise I would be the first person to welcome that. Therefore, I was pleased to acknowledge that during the election campaign the Prime Minister also agreed to match the Labor Party's initiative in putting the funding into James Cook University. That was a bit of a change from 1996 when the then Liberal candidate for Herbert, Mr Peter Lindsay, said that it was impractical to have James Cook University establish a medical school. We are pleased that the current member for Herbert is no longer criticising such a policy. In fact, he is now embracing it as his own.The question I have for the government, and also for the member for Herbert if he cares to raise this matter in an adjournment or in this chamber at a future time, is: what is happening with the progression of the establishment and funding for that new medical school at James Cook University?I have heard a rumour—and I would be grateful if the parliamentary secretary or the member for Herbert could confirm this rumour—that there was to be a meeting in Queensland to discuss this very issue about the future of the medical school in Townsville and that it was expected that the federal department of health and the federal department of education would both be represented there. This was to happen shortly after the election. The rumour I have heard is that while the federal department of health was willing to attend that meeting, the federal department of education said that unfortunately they had been instructed not to attend the meeting to discuss the future of that medical school at James Cook University because they had to brief their new minister.The only problem was that the new minister is the old minister. The only change in this minister's portfolio responsibilities was that he had his workload halved. Yet this is used as some excuse as to why his department was unable to receive instructions to attend this meeting in Queensland to, hopefully, expedite the future of that medical school.Far be it from me to believe every rumour I hear, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs could make some inquiries and tell us whether it is correct that her departmental officers cancelled their attendance at that meeting, which forced the collapse of the meeting, which resulted in a further delay in progressing the establishment of that new medical school at Townsville.The effects of the massive cuts to university funding have already been felt across the country. In New South Wales 1,285 places were lost at Sydney University, 950 places were lost at the University of New South Wales and, much closer to my home, 655 places were lost at the University of Newcastle, which affects the Ourimbah campus in my own electorate. I intend, as member for Dobell as well as the Labor Party spokesman on education, to keep raising in every possible forum the need for additional federal funding for additional places at the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle. Students who live on the Central Coast have very low post-secondary participation rates, very low tertiary education participation rates, and it will be only through an expansion of the number of places at the Ourimbah campus that we can make sure that more students on the Central Coast have a chance to complete tertiary studies.Universities across Australia have been forced to cut the range of courses that they are offering. For example, the University of New South Wales has been forced to close its St George campus and its teacher education facilities. At Monash there has been a loss of 120 staff from the arts faculty and the closure of the classics department. In the Northern Territory there has been the closure of the English department, I understand, and at the Sydney University of Technology there have been job losses in nursing, humanities and social sciences.I was interested to read in the minister's second reading speech the following statement:The government also recognises that collaboration between universities and industry is critical to expanding our knowledge base and generating wealth. By providing enhanced opportunities for university researchers and research training students to collaborate with the industry, Australia will be better able to position itself in the global knowledge market.The problem is that this government have introduced funding cuts that have decimated research in Australia. Not only have they cut back funding for universities; they abolished the tax concessions for research and development for the private sector. And changes in industry policy, for example, in pharmaceutical manufacturing, have meant that companies are receiving less incentive to carry out research and development in Australia. I suggest that the minister needs to look very closely at the policies of his own government if he believes that there was any basis to believe that there is an increase in research as a result of this government's policies.In international marketing and promotion, this bill also highlights the government's failure of commitment in relation to education exports. Two-thirds of the $21 million promised by the minister for the new Australian education international marketing body have simply been cut from existing programs. The Howard government is clearly failing to recognise the importance of the education export industry, which generates more than $3 billion a year for Australia.The bill also contains funding for open learning organisations in 1999 and 2000. Open learning has been seriously damaged by this government, in deregulating fees for open learning but failing to match those changes with changes to the open learning deferred payment scheme. By increasing the fees but not increasing the capacity of students to defer payment of those fees, the government has placed a substantial financial barrier in front of prospective open learning students.The bill also alters estimates for special capital projects, various grants programs, superannuation and teaching hospitals, in line with government estimates of relevant inflation rates. In relation to these matters, I can only say the opposition is delighted that the minister seems so far to have left them mostly alone.There are two final issues I would like to raise. First of all, I want to raise the matter of HECS. Before the 1996 election, John Howard promised he would `ensure that all individuals have a fair and equitable opportunity to benefit from a higher education'. Three years later the government's HECS changes and cuts to university operating grants mean that Australian students have to pay twice as much for their opportunity to get access to fewer places. HECS charges have increased by up to 125 per cent under this government and students are being forced to repay that debt long before they achieve a salary close to average weekly earnings.In 1997, HECS for arts, humanities, social studies, performing arts, education, nursing and legal studies went up by 35 per cent; HECS for mathematics, science, engineering, computing, health sciences, agriculture, architecture, business and economics went up by 92 per cent; HECS for law, medicine, dentistry and veterinary science went up by 125 per cent. I know that veterinary science would be an issue of concern to you in particular, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl. It went up by 125 per cent.The tragedy of these mean-spirited and narrow-minded cuts is that they have had a dramatic impact in discouraging potential students from applying to go to university. The Howard government has raised a massive financial barrier to tertiary education, which is discouraging students, especially those from low-income backgrounds, who are far more likely to be wary of accumulating large debts.Finally, the GST will increase the cost of food, books, public transport, software and Internet usage for all students, including higher education students, many of whom are on very low incomes. Books have never been taxed before in Australia, and this government's policy to introduce a GST on books is another win for mindless market ideology over commonsense. Schools, TAFEs and universities will be faced with a massive administrative burden. They will have to pay the GST on the goods and services which they used to be able to purchase sales tax exempt, and then they will have to fill out mountains of paperwork to claim back the money they should never have paid.For these reasons, we will not be opposing the legislation, but I move the following amendment to the second reading motion: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 condemns the government for damaging Australia's vitally important higher education system by: (1) slashing funding to Australian universities resulting in 21,000 fewer student places; and (2) driving down University application rates by 3.3% in 1997 and a further 3.1% in 1998 by increasing HECS charges and lowering the repayment threshold'.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the amendment seconded?IJ4SNOWDONMr Snowdon—I second the amendment.18:53:00241Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I will be very, very brief. I would like to endorse all of the words spoken by my colleague the shadow minister, thereby obviating the need for me to say a lot. But I do want to make a very quick reference to the Northern Territory University.The fact is that when I was first elected to this place in 1987, on the first occasion, we fought to have the Northern Territory University properly funded by the federal government. It took some time because of the recalcitrants in the CLP in the Northern Territory and their attitude towards it. But nevertheless it happened. But, since the election of the first Howard government, we have seen the Northern Territory University lose about 20 per cent of its funding. We have seen enrolments fall by 14 per cent, the largest fall of any university in Australia. There appears to be a direct correlation between the funding and the provision of resources and courses.The Northern Territory University no longer offers courses in English, ceramics, sculpture or cartography. A university not offering English! I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: is that reasonable in this day and age as we approach the centenary of our federation, in a community where multiculturalism is so important to us, in a community where English is so important to us? The Northern Territory University has lost 70 staff through rationalisation, 15 of these through involuntary redundancy, which has caused great angst and cost a lot of money.There is now increased pressure on research staff to support new structures at the expense of research activities. Despite the efforts of local business, the funding gaps left as a result of the malicious policies of the Howard government will not be retrieved by the support of local enterprise; that will only come from government.18:55:00241Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by the member for Dobell. I am pleased, first of all, to hear him say that he will work constructively with the government—MG4LEEMr Lee—Just as I did in health.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—Sometimes. That is provided he is given sufficient time, which of course leads me to some explanations. Perhaps it was because he was concentrating on the health portfolio that he was unaware that the main measures of this bill were introduced and passed through the House in 1997 but did not pass the Senate. Other measures were introduced into the House on 1 July 1998 but have lapsed.The only new measures in this bill are the funding for Notre Dame University, which was agreed to in writing. I have here a copy of the letter from the Leader of the Opposition dated June 1998. The only other additional measures coming out of election promises were the funding for James Cook University and the strategic partnership industry training scheme, with additional funding through to 2000. There are no other new measures in this at all. I am sure that the member for Dobell will become better acquainted with his shadow portfolio as time goes by.In response to his stories about rumours about meetings being held and which department officials would be there, it is my understanding that the meeting was only rescheduled and that it will take place very shortly, with the involvement of my department as well as that of the officers of the Department of Health and Aged Care.I do thank those who have taken part in this debate. While they are few, it is very important legislation that should proceed promptly, and I seek the cooperation of my colleagues to ensure its rapid passage.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.Question resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—A message has been received from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the constitution, an appropriation for the purposes of this bill.Mr Speaker has also received a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the constitution, an appropriation for the purpose of an amendment to this bill.242Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:58:00242Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 5), omit "Table B ", substitute `Table A ".I present the signed explanatory memorandum. The amendment is required because of a drafting error. The amendment will ensure that the University of Notre Dame Australia will receive funding for operating purposes, under section 15 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, for its Broome campus, rather than under section 16 for limited operating purposes. The amendment will have the effect of providing the university with triennial funding as opposed to annual funding and will provide a capital roll-in and research quantum component in the university's operating grant as well as enable the university to seek funding under the capital development pool for major building works. This is consistent with the government's intention to provide a stable funding base for the university's Broome campus in recognition of the significant role that the university plays in that region.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The bill has been agreed to with an amendment. The question now is that the bill be reported to the House with an amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Main Committee adjourned at 7.00 p.m.